From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 1 19:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" Message-ID: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> 1) Balaam advocates the destruction of an entire people. He is a hired gun (or mouth) who has exploited his prophetic gift and is willing to help implement a genocide for the right price. This type of individual has separated himself from all people, hence, this position of his is coded in his very name Balaam, "B'li Am," "without a people." 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is called an "aton.? Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of the physical. But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey, therefore his donkey speaks to him -- the inference being that Balaam has descended to an animalistic level, and that is the symbolism of the donkey talking to him. I see it as "chamor" in the sense of "heavy" referring to Abraham, since he carries so much more weight than Balaam. On the other hand, Balaam's donkey is called ?aton,? very similar to the word "etnan" which means a "harlot's pay? ? quitet fascinating since Balaam prostituted himself with the intention of fulfilling Balak's request. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.? Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 2 08:25:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: RMB wrote: > IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than > Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ > that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what > the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions > in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) > believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in > 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. Indeed, I recall, upon dealing with those various shittos while in RIETS, particularly as covered by Rav Charlop in a shiur of his, that Satmar and Rav Kook are a lot closer to each other than to Agudah & Rav Soloveitchik. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 09:14:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:14:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?What_is_the_correct_way_to_pronounce_Hashem?= =?cp1255?q?=92s_name_in_Shmoneh_Esrei_and_other_brachos=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170703161444.GC18193@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Halacha Yomis ... : A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D ... "We have : a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, : that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY : -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf : Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." First, we know from seifer Shoferim that different shevatim had different accents, such that Shevet Ephraim (like Litvaks of a much later date) pronounced as right-dotted shin the same as a sin or samekh. So how can we talk about a single accent even at Har Sinai? I therefore assume RSZE Hy"d was saying that you need to use your mesorah's patach-cholam-qamatz, as he spells out in the rephrasing. And that these vowels are what's misinai. Which is also problematic, as the division of various possible vowel alophones into specific phonemes probably didn't happen until Teverya. This next paragraph may make your eyes glaze over. It justifies the previous one, but feel free to skip it if it bores you and move on to the next point: Which explains why Bavel's nequdos don't line up one-to-one with the ones we use today -- one symbol for segol and patach and one symbol for qamatz qatan and cholam with a different one for. And the prior Israeli system fits Sepharadi pronounciation, fewer symbols showing less differentiation, but it could simply be less precise. The way we still have one symbol for qamatz qatan and qamatz gadol, or sheva na and sheva nach. (Unless you are using a "simanim" or other non-standard printing. Unicode actually supports this differentiation, if you find a font and a text file that distinguishes.) One symbol does not mean one phoneme. But it hints at how the locals viewer the vowels. Like Rashi, who echoes the Babylonian single segol-patach system when he refers to a segol as a patach qatan. (If you are still reading this paragraph, you'd probably enjoy our mesorah email list. Ask me to sign you up!) R Rallis Weisenthal (CC-ed), in his siddur in memory of Qh"Q Bad Homburg pg LXV (on opensiddur.org), lists traditional Ashkneazi cholam sounds, claiming that they're all dipthongs. ("Claiming", because I am not sure he's right on one of them): Poland, Austria-Hungary komatz chirik O^i [t]oy Lithuania, Russia segol chirik Ae^i [p]ay Northern Germany, Holland patach shuruk A^u [h]ow Southern Germany, Switzerland, France, Latvia, England, North America komatz shuruk O^u [g]o I think the Lithuanian cholam was originally more like /oe/ a sound halfway between /o/ and a tzeirei. (And the /e/ of the tzeirei isn't quite the same as a segol.) What he is describing reflects later Polish influence, a compromise position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio could help here. And I think the British cholam actually is rounder than a qamatz, like a long /O/ in English. And like a long /O/, there is a tendency to add a rounding /w/ (eg "blow"), but it's not always there. Maybe a dipthong of qamatz qatan and a /w/, which is shitas haGra. Not entirely different than what RRW writes, but also not quite as implied from his description. Anyway, he has a continuing discussion by R' Y Kramer againt using a /y/ or /i/ sound to round a cholam. Go to the above link. It's too long and two bi-lingual for me to cut-n-paste here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 10:03:51PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. : However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is : called an "aton." : Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) : suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of : the physical. : But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey... Thus the root "aleph-tav", meaning together with (eg "ito bateivah"). The Gra makes this point about riding a chamor being mastery of one's chomer vs being together with one's ason. I bet RAK cites him. He lurks here, but I took the liberty of CC-ing RAK so as to get his attention. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 11:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The Maharal -- preceded the Gra on this point. Here is a paragraph from the new edition of Explorations (anticipated 20th anniversary edition) The denouement of history is in our hands. The Mashiach will be revealed in clouds of glory if we are worthy; if we are unworthy, our redemption will be of a far less exalted nature. If we are deserving, the clouds will be revealed sooner; if not, the redemption will take longer, and the process will be slow and plodding -- but the redemption will surely come. And just as the clouds are an image that is laden with meaning, representing man's ability to recognize and connect to the metaphysical plane, so, too, the image of the Messiah as a poor man riding on his donkey is no mere literary device: According to mystical sources, this metaphor holds the key to the redemption itself: The Zohar[1] explains that the role of Mashiach is to ride on the chamor, to subdue the physical.[2] ________________________________ [1] Zohar Bemidbar 207a ???? ??? ? ?? ??/? ????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?????"?. ?????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??????????, (????? ??) ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????"? ?????????. ?????? ???? ??????, ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? Those of the right are all merged in one called "donkey," and that is the donkey of which it is written, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" [Devarim 22:10]. That is also the donkey which the King Mashiach shall control. (Zohar, Bemidbar 207a) [2] See comments of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael chapter 40. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? - ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ?"? ???????? ???"? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????...??"? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. Can I repeat that second line on list? As for the first line... In general, email lists are failing. And yet, I don't want to move Avodah to a medium that encourages quick and short answers. If Avodah can't remain a place for in-depth discussion, I'll let it fade away. Mail-Jewish, the grand-daddy in the field, is coming out with a digest every two weeks or so. Although it's healthier than Avodah in terms of breadth of contributor pool. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 07:54:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it Message-ID: Recently, someone quoted a friend as saying something about how doing something for the wrong reason could constitute making the Mishna Burah into an Avodah Zara. Or something like that, I don't remember exactly, and I spent almost an hour trying to find the post, so that's why I can't quote it. Anyway, that person was wondering where the idea came from, and I found the following in the current issue of Jewish Action, also available online at https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ > Love of Torah does not always translate into love of > people ? or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk > caustically noted that increased religious observance is not > always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather > sometimes it is for the sake of ?worshipping the Shulchan Aruch.? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 11:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad Message-ID: Mishnah Megillah 4:9 teaches us: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad just like he blesses for the good." That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are talking about two different situations: If one has actually experienced something, then he must bless God for the good *OR* for the bad, whichever applies to the experience. There is no need to be inclusive, to mention that He is responsible for both. But when one speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when he must mention both the good and the bad. Or perhaps he can speak in generalities, but he must be careful not to suggest that God does *only* good things, to the exclusion of painful things: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that He *does* good. The things He does is described mostly in terms of the life He gives us, and the miracles that He does. (It is true that at one point it we thank Him for "tovosecha" - Your good things - but that is secondary, coming after "niflaosecha".) But then we turned to the fourth bracha of Birkas Hamazon, usually referred to as "Hatov v'haMaytiv" - "the One who is good, and does good" - from the central words. And then it continues: "Hu haytiv, hu maytiv, hu yaytiv lanu" - "He has done good, He does do good, and He will do good to us." And it closes with: "He will never deprive us of anything good." Where is the bad? In what way is this bracha not a violation of this mishna in Megilla? I concede that we've left out the Mishna's word "yizacher", but I don't think that is relevant. It appears to go directly against what the Gemara Megilla wrote, "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad." Is there any way to reconcile this gemara with this bracha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 13:44:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/07/17 14:54, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But when one > speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when > he must mention both the good and the bad. No. There is no need to mention all the things He does. Nor is there any need, when thanking Him for the good things He does, to include also the other things He does. What one may not do is declare that He is *to be thanked for* the good things He does, which implies He is *not* to be thanked for the other things he does. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:15:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered Message-ID: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:17:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:17:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 08:00:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170706150007.GD11698@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:17:31PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? : If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at : all minyanim? By whom? In an alternate reality, where I went into kelei qodesh instead of Wall Street programming jobs, there is (would have been?) a movement by now called Mevaqshei Tov veYosher, a/k/a Other-Focused Orthodoxy (OFO). The OFO flagship shul, Yishrei Leiv, hosts AishDas programming, of course, and at this point in alternate time, has a number of ve'adei mussar, shiurim in machashavah and workshops in tefillah. And, in line with OFO ideology, the rule for who can correct the baal qeri'ah is simple. The only people who can do so are (would be): 1- the gabbaim, 2- the rav, and 3- next week's baal qeri'ah . (Everyone else should go to the gabbaim quietly. Even at the expense of an occasional repeated pasuq. But also gabbaim would need to know diqduq and be able to field the simpler questions of which mistakes actually require correction.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 7 15:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:51:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION Message-ID: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> I sent an email to AVODAH where I mistakenly wrote that Rav Rivkas from Rabbeinu HaGra's family did not write Be'er Hagolah seeking to correct their misspelling. I wrote Bay.ur Hagolah. NEITHER is correct. He wrote B' er HaGolah. there is a shva under the Bais. I ws mistakenly thinking of ppl mistakenly saying Biur HaGra instead of Bay.ur Hagra. My mistake but as least I was thinking of the Gra. :) Reb Joel -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:51:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] the desire to be remembered Message-ID: <000001d2f823$a6448d60$f2cda820$@actcom.net.il> I would call this the need for recognition or the desire for kavod. I think it is a yetzer akin to the need for food or the desire for sex, the yetzer hara that is 'tov la'adam' as Bereshit Rabba puts it. Without the appetite for food, we would probably die of malnutrition; without the desire for sexual pleasure we would probably not want to procreate, and without the desire for kavod/recognition, we would probably be sociopaths. Our need for recognition (desire to be remembered, if you prefer) enables everything from toilet training to basic manners to our desire to contribute positively to society. If we did not need the approval of our parents and our peers, we would never get far enough along the path of social interaction to learn the rewarding nature of altruism and doing good for the sake of doing good. The process of socialization makes us human. Without our need for kavod/approval/recognition, it is hard to see how we could ever be educated. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 14:24:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:24:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India Message-ID: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties between Israel and India? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 19:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India In-Reply-To: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> References: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 08/07/17 17:24, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol > worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties > between Israel and India? I don't see why. There were treaties between our ancient kings and foreign rulers, pretty much all of whom served AZ. And of course there's the treaty between Yaacov & Lavan, which was explicitly backed by each party's deity/ies. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 08:24:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION In-Reply-To: <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> References: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59624AA6.4070406@schnurassociates.com> at least I know that there are some people actually reading what I send out, so TY 2 Rabbi Ralbag, shimon, Capt Dan and I think Mendy for responding. as for the rabbi's comment, I am pleased to see/read that he has a good sense of humor. I also learned how to spell email in Hebrew. My announced CORRECTION reminds me of the incident with Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he had a prober for being Rosh Hayeshiva for KOL TORAH. he was giving his shiur and someone corrected him. He stopped, thought about it and then said 'taeeti" figuring he blew his chance for getting the job. Afterwards they told him he was selected as RY and he supposedly said "but I blew it when I made that mistake." Just the opposite they said. We want someone who is able to admit he made a mistake. and with that story, I end this adventure. :) B'yidedus, Joel > Rav Ralbag > July 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM > ?? JOEL: > ???? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. > ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????-??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? > ????? !! > ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? - ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? > ??? !!!!??? > ??? ???? ????? ?????-????? ! > ????? ???? ???? ??? ?-?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ??????? ??? ????? > ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? - ?????, ???? ????? ???? > ???? !!! > ??????? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, > ???? ????? On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, mendy stern wrote: > So you want to be the Rosh Yeshiva? Only if the yeshiva davens nusach HaGra! Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 19:36:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? ---------------- My shul does not, except that the previous (now deceased Rav) was very against it, quoting the Tur about embarrassing the Baal Korei. That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 20:00:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:00:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <04ba01d2f928$bced1db0$36c75910$@gmail.com> R' JR: R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? ------------------------ Maslow's highest level in his Hierarchy of Needs (in its later permutations) is self-transcendence. I think that's what you're talking about. Here's some further on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcenden ce KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 02:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:45:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ================================ We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 09:24:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: ?Pinhas? has turned back Chamati, My wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11) So, Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous, difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamati (my wrath), the two outside letters chet and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters, mem and tav, read meit ? death. The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meit) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai). (Also, if you remove the "W" (for Wilderness) from "wrath" and replace it with "O" (for Obedience to God), the ?orath? can be rearranged to read Torah). Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live. Norman Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 11:58:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:37am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote to Areivim: : In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla : attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. : : My review and analysis of his failed approach to halacha is at : http://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/2017/7/7/the-not-so-orthodox-embrace-of-the-new-age-movement Although RBR posted to Areivim, I have an Avodah question. To quote: > To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For > example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has > been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to > the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved > as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies > it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, > or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it > globally. And the article discusses things like auras and other New Age ideas that if traced back to their origins one will find AZ. Is it all that different than the gemara's discussion or wearing a fox's tooth, where even a Rationalist like the Rambam (Shabbos 19:13) permits? Darkhei Emori are allowed for refu'ah (AZ 67a). Also Rashi (Chullin 77b "yeish") which according to the Panim Me'iros (1:36) includes any act to the body to be healed, but not "spooky action at a distance" (to quote Dr Einstein out of context). The Ran (Chullin ad loc) based on this Rashi explicitly permits any act we know works to heal, even if the workings are metaphysical. So is the difference only in which metaphysics I personally believe is real, and which is -- again, IMHO -- "woowoo"? And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? Are the laws of tereifos, which say put despite later findings about what an animal can live 12 months with, and what not, typical and precedent to say we go with Chazal's science, law is law, ignore the science? Or is it an exception because tereifos is halakhah leMoshe miSinai? I could see the standard of medical testing being decided by that question... Or... when it comes to which saqanos one is allowed to risk, the standard is normal and accepted. If people tend to climb trees to pick dates, it is mutar to get a job risking a fall from the top of a date-palm. Perhaps medicine too is defined by societal standards. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 12:27:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> References: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> Message-ID: And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 14:47:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170710214723.GA29132@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to : be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this : desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's : knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or : general society)? >From a recent blog post of mine, The Interpersonal Aspect of Parah Adumah : To illustrate how the Yerushalmi works, I enjoy taking a rather extreme case -- Berakhos 7:1, 51b: 1. Rav Huna said: Three who eat, this one by himself, this one by himself, and this one by himself, who then mix together should bentch with a mezuman. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three people, so that each ate with an obligation of zimun, even if from different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may make a zimun] when they ate together. 1. Rabbi Yonah [commented] on that which Rab Hunah [was just quoted as saying]: If [the kohein] dipped three hyssop sprigs [into the water made with the ashes of a parah adumah], this one by itself and this one by itself, and mixed them [the hyssops] together, one may sprinkle [the person needing taharah] with them. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three sprigs, so that each sprig was dipped as part of a group of three, even if different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may may be used for sprinkling parah adumah water] when they were dipped together. ... But what justifies this comparison? Is it really an expectation that all groups of three ought to be alike, regardless of the topic or the sort of group? In 1973, Ernest Becker wrote a book on philosophy and psychology titled "The Denial of Death". To give a thumbnail of his basic thesis, here are some snippets from [38]The Becker Foundation's "Theories" page: "[T]he basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death." ... The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of mortality. Since human beings have a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we can transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving the symbolic half. Becker describes human pursuit of "immortality projects" (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things. Still, for Becker, the only suitable source of meaning is transcendent, cosmic energy, divine purpose... Becker develops an idea that strikes most of us naturally. A central -- and perhaps THE central -- piece of our drives to contribute to community and to pursue a higher meaning is because these both overcome our own death. What I give my children outlives me in my children, grandchildren and beyond. What I contribute to the Jewish People is eternal because our nation is eternal. What I add to the development of humanity from Adam to the messiah outlives me in impacting the lives of generations to come. Fear of death, the need to embark on "immortality projects" can push us to expand our souls to beyond our mortal bodies. As Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to his substance and body. Above that one is someone who feels that his "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above that one is someone who can include in his "ani" all of his household and family.... And there are more levels in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the world and worlds are his "ani," and he himself is only one small limb in all of creation.... Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and [even] all of creation. The parah adumah is about overcoming death. A person who witnessed or experienced another's death is told to go through a ritual of changing tracks... He not only sees three sprigs from a scrubby bush, but also is thinking about joining together and how he can join with others. How to turn that conversation around from death and its reminder that we are merely physical beings toward death as a drive to go beyond that. We should not forget the most cryptic (choq-like) element of the parah adumah. ... [I]t requires that someone from the community reach out to them, even at their own expense. A true uniting of someone who might be thinking about death and man-as-mammal back into being a person contributing meaning to a larger community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 19:08:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on > chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better > standards for testing medicine? R' Joel Rich responded: > The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud > certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and > correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with > sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what > was known to them in their time." > > I'd appreciate specific examples I recently tried to learn a bit about Techum Shabbos. I was very surprised to find an entire siman (#399, with eleven se'ifim), giving details of exactly how the techum is to be measured. For example, the first se'if specifies that we must use a linen rope exactly 50 amos long. I was very surprised that the halacha would write such things, rather than simply presuming that we'd be smart enough to use whatever procedures are generally accepted as accurate. This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do it. The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective one, and tradition might rule. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 21:51:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> R' JR: We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. -------------------------------- I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 04:56:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fb6f6b1-b8cd-4075-09ea-8f770a1b66bd@zahav.net.il> If the person is reading from a full Bible, I will just listen. If I am not sure what book he's reading from, I'll read it to myself. IIRC the Mishna Bruria takes it as a given that the reason most shuls don't read from the klaf is because of the cost. Given today's incomes and fancy shuls, that shouldn't be a factor. And yet, it is the rare beit knesset where they read from a klaf. Ben On 7/11/2017 6:51 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? > > KT, > MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 15:50:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170711225048.GA29349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be : corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to : themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach : Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. : : Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? I will confirm. ... WRT shuls that aren't leining from kelaf. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 17:09:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 18:31:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170712013159.GA6359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, : who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a : surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, : they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do : it. Say I were to use a shorter rope. Well, then my measurments would include more dips and bumps. Whereas the 50 ammah rope might cut a direct path, a shorter rope would have two segments, in different angles. The measure would be longer than if you just cut the tangent. (And in fact, since most landscape is fractal, or nearly fractal until you get cown to molecules, if your "ruler" were smaller than a grain of sand, you could probably measure 50 amos along the wrinkles of the surface within an arm's reach of where you started.) So, the length of the rope will actually change the final measure. The navi implies that a shorter rope would be /too/ accurate, forcing a smaller measure than necessary. The weight of the chain means that sagging is more common, as lest if you aren't a surveyor. Or maybe the exact strechiness of linen - less than wool but more than metal, is also part of the actual measure. ... : The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might : agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better : procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring : distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular : procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective : science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective And to reframe where I was going above in these terms: There are times when Chazal are not trying to establish objective facts. (Or, to revive another old thread and my hangup about how halakhah defines metzi'us: ... to establish as objectively as possible those facts that could potentially enter our subjective experience.) In nidon didan, the question would be: In order for a treatment not to be derekh emori, and to be allowed on Shabbos where medicine for a choleh sh'ein bo saqanah would be allows, does it 1- have to be established as potentially effect to the best we can establish it? or 2- have to be accepted as potentially effective by chazaqah, which is the normal rule for justifying presumption in cases of doubt? How objetive are we being asked to be? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 12 19:06:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:06:59 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not Shechted? Meaning, if we have a creature that cannot be Shechted, but it is not a non-Kosher species, it might be a Neveilah but be Kosher to eat because there is no prohibition on eating Neveilah. The non-fully gestated cow sheep or goat, even if it is born in the normal manner, is not classified in Halacha as Bakar or Tzon. See Rashi Chulin 72b end of Mishneh. It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 03:33:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170713103351.GD14756@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:54:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ :> Love of Torah does not always translate into love of :> people -- or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk :> caustically noted that increased religious observance is not :> always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather :> sometimes it is for the sake of "worshipping the Shulchan Aruch." In R' Shlomo Wolbe, Alei Shur, vol II, "Frumkeit" , speaks of halachic obervant not for the sake of worshipping G-d, but speaks to why one would "worship the SA" if it isn't about G-d. A translation of the opening: > Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge to connect to the Creator. This > instinct is also found in animals. King David said, " The young lions roar > after their prey, and seek their food from G-d." (Psalms 104:21) "He gives > to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." (Psalms 147:9) > There is no need to understand these verses as [mere] figures of > speech -- animals have an instinctive sense that there exists One who > is concerned about their sustenance. This instinct [also] operates in > man -- on a higher level, of course. This natural frumkeit [instinct] > assists us in our service of G-d, and without this natural assistance > our service would would be extremely heavy upon us. However, frumkeit, > like any other instinctive urge that operates within man, is naturally > egotistical and self-centered. Accordingly, frumkeit drives a person to > do only that which is good for himself -- [in contrast, positive] actions > between man and his fellow man, as well as wholehearted actions between > man and G-d are not fueled by frumkeit. One who bases his service on it > alone remains egocentric. Even if he were to impose many stringencies > upon himself, he would not become a man of kindness, and he would not > reach [the level of] altruistic service. This is what necessitates that > we base our service specifically on intellect... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 16:31:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:00:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3abd2947-8a52-7433-c908-731af71507b2@sero.name> On 13/07/17 19:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr > Gouraud of the US. Google misinforms you. See, e.g., http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1412.htm#20 Or, lehavdil, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/1935454 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:37:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> R' MB: The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. --------------------------------- Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which was intended for facial hair. KT, MYG P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:11:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20170714151122.GB32531@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: : Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which : was intended for facial hair. It says that the poor "waxed" themselves with sid; and I am assumign that's not for skin as sensitive as cheeks. The rich used soles. Was this as an abrasive? Is fine flour even abrasive, or (as I seem to recall of today's grindings) -- soft? I think the rich used white makeup. And benos melakhim used shemen hamor, which we are told is acidic olive oil from underripe olives. While I do not doubt that benos melakhim tried this a means to reduce hair growth (the gemara says it also ma'adan habasar) I do doubt it worked. More recently (meaning, up to the mass production of depilatories) in Europe, cat's urine (for the ammonia, a strong base) or vinegar (an acid) were used. Both were believed to prevent or reduce hair growth, not remove what did gwo. But both failed double-blind testing. : P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use : wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. Many NA nations also tend to produce far less facial hair than most Jewish men to start with. I guess people can learn to get used to it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714152753.GA14639@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:59PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not : Shechted? In his Bar Mitzvah derashah, R' Chaim Brisker proved that neveilah and tereifah were aspects of the same underlying issur. Thus explaining (among other points I do not remember) why the Rambam holds that a neveilah and a tereifah can be metz'tarfos to a kezayis issur. Which would imply that WRT eating, all non-shechted meat is the same, and the issur is the lack of shechitah, not the tum'as neveilah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:47:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714154729.GB14639@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies : that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that : contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad : just like he blesses for the good." But that doesn't mean he must bless for the bad whenever he blesses for the good. Which is I think the chiluq that resolves the problems you raised. : That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say : one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one : experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On : *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is : irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Actually, even painful effects of the same occasion. Like the textbook case: Inheriting a large some of money requires making both Dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. : Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are : talking about two different situations... I think they are both talking about the good and tragic in the same situations. The first mishnah is prohibiting someone from even implying in a non-response context that when experiencing tragedy, one can skip Dayan ha'emes. : So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually : followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It : turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is : mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that : He *does* good.... Mah beinaihu? After all, all His "Middos" are about appearances and how the effects of his Action look to us. And actually, it pretty explicitly says in one point that it's about G-d appearing to us as Good -- "'haTov' shimkha". But as I opened, I didn't see Megillah as saying when we offer general thanks, it must be about both. Rather, he cannot be the kind of peson that skips thanking Him for those things He does "for our own good" (to paraphrase the stereotypical parent line). And thus, no problem in the 4th berakhah of bentching, either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:08:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: . R' Meir G Rabi asked: > It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just > like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. Why can't a horse be shechted? Is it missing the simanim? Of course, it would still be assur to eat the horse because it is a tamay species, but would that prevent one from doing a valid shechita? (I vaguely recall a case where a choleh sheyesh bo sakana was prescribed pork by his doctor, and the rav told him to shecht the chazir.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:02:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of him that is generally accepted as accurate? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:26:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure > I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone > reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only > the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go > 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? I have no idea what you mean by "litvishe" in this context. Do you mean Nusach Ashenaz, or Yeshivish, or In A Yeshiva, or something else? Anyway, in the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls and yeshivos that I have attended, virtually no one reads the haftara to himself, regardless of whether the Reader is reading from a klaf, a printed Tanach, or a Chumash. And those few who *do* read it to themselves are (unfortunately) loud enough to make it difficult to hear the Reader. In the Nusach Sefard shuls I've been to, there much more people reading to themselves. In fact, the Reader often doesn't even attempt to raise his voice so that others can hear him. But I've attended Nusach Sefard shuls rarely enough that I cannot venture a guess about the percentages. R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:23:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:23:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185632c6b5e74915992256cfd1207daf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ because I assumed that one was not being yotzeih with that reading but one's own Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 20:00:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:00:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes > are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of > the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an > educational thing"? I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. There is a chiyuv for a tzibur to read the Torah, although not on any individual to hear it. Even if ten men come into shul after krias hatorah they do not have to make it up, but if it was not read at all then the tzibur must make it up. But with the haftarah even if it was not read at all they need not make it up; this shows that there is no chiyuv, and therefore nothing that can be said not to have been fulfilled. Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:24:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? Or to be less pretencious: *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos on the other side? My wife is a righty and we use joint accounts. We are both listed as owners, and both of our names were on the mortgage. Even if I were supposed to hang my mezuzos on the left, are we shutefim in owning the house and therefore it should follow the rightward norm? I asked R' Gidon Rothstein, since it was his recent post on Torah Musings that launched my wondering, and he felt that it would go by the assumption that typical people coming in and out of the house are righty, and the owner's handedness shouldn't matter. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 08:25:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> References: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/07/17 22:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the > baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? > > Or to be less pretencious:*Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his > mezuzos on the other side? I wouldn't expect it, because I don't see any sevara to differentiate between houses based on who the owner is. Mezuzah is (lich'orah) a chovas cheftza, and the house is not left-handed! (See http://tinyurl.com/y9btfa9c , who cites R Chaim Brisker, Stencil #3) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/2017 6:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes >> are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of >> the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an >> educational thing"? > > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let > alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply that it's not just casual reading? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170716193026.GA17994@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that : imply that it's not just casual reading? to strengthen the point, that "we" includes Sepharadim, who don't make berakhos on minhagim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 19:16:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28c39ae9-0df9-89c0-ea06-a5e1b0b700a7@sero.name> On 16/07/17 15:20, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let >> alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. > > But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply > that it's not just casual reading? It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a missed haftara. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:42:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The problem with OU DE In-Reply-To: References: <1500310874499.90870@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170718214244.GA27595@aishdas.org> On 7/17/2017 7:03 PM, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: > Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a > Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel > bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is > that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not > simultaneously. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote: : Why not? Bateil is bateil. See Chullin 11b. Dagim that "alu" into a qe'ara of meat may be eaten with milchig. But going on a plate of meat -- what does that mean? Does it mean cooking? Ashkenazim hold, "'alu' -- aval lo nisbashlu". It's na"t bar na"t. The Tur, the YD 95, the BY's discussion of the Rivan and Tosafos, Rama YD s' 2, the Shakh s"q 3, and the AhS s' 5,11-15 assert as much halakhah lema'aseh. The way you treat bitul, there would be no such thing as nosein ta'am. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:24:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: <596E7C94.5030109@schnurassociates.com> Our K'vasikin minyan at the Young Israel of Ave k in Flatbush, K & East 29, (45 minutes before HaNetz on Shabbos and YT, 30 minutes on cholo shel moed and RH), reads from a klaf only al pi HaGra and only the baal k'riah reads while everyone else just listens and answers awmen (no BHUS) -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos > on the other side? Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it on the right side of the one who enters." And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 16:47:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:47:22 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: R Akiva Miller asked - why can a horse not be Shechted? A horse cannot be Shechted the same way that a G cannot perform Shechitah. Shechitah is not a mechanical action performed to meet certain criteria - Shechitah requires the right person, the right animal and the proper action. The Mishneh Chullin 72b asks a Q we would never ask, in fact it takes a very long time to actually read and make sense of the Mishneh, so counter intuitive is its premise. Why is it that a horse is a Neveilah even if it is Shechted whereas a cow which is Shechted is not a Neveilah in spite of it being a Tereifa? In our mind, the non-Kosher status of a Tereifa is a consequence of its ritual blemish which in no way affects the Shechitah; of course the Shechitah should prevent the animal becoming a Neveilah. But that is not how the Mishneh sees things - the Mishneh understands that the Tereifa status of the cow invalidates the Shechitah - it is, in the Mishneh's mind, equivalent to Shechting a horse. The Mishneh answers that Yesh BeMino Shechitah - meaning, although the animal itself ought to be deemed not Shechted, nevertheless as a species it has an association with Shechitah so the Shechitah will, in spite of being imperfect, prevent it becoming a Neveilah. And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. R Micha already noted that this touches upon the [in]famous bar-mitzvah Pshettel of R Chaim. But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The Gemara [Chullin 113] requires a special Ribbuy to teach that there is an Issur to cook premature born cow with milk Gedi LeRabbos Es HaShellil. Why? Why might we think it is not like a regular cow? The Tiferes YaAkov explains that such an animal has no Issur Cheilev, Chullin 75a, which is unsurprising considering that it is not a BeHeimah, so we may well have argued there is no Issur BBCh; KMLan that it is deemed to be Bassar for the Issur of BBCh. Now think about this - a Jew may not cook nor eat BBCh If a Yid however is about to eat Cheilev, which he may not cook with milk since it is deemed to be Bassar, we cannot warn him that he is transgressing the Issur of eating BBCh. Why? Because Ein Issur Chal Al Issur - once the Issur of Cheilev is already in place the later Issur of BBCh cannot take hold. Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Which seems to indicate that although it is a Neveilah, there is no Issur to eat a prematurely born cow. [To be sure we would need to verify that it has not entered its ninth month.] Hence my Q - Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:23:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, > let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps "minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes? > Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read > at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is that we're supposed to be doing? In a later post, he wrote: > It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's > takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that > one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias > hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this > from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it > must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a > missed haftara. I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read. Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:31:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> On 7/19/2017 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay > when the haftarah is read improperly? I don't think the question works. Consider: we have a chiyuv to daven shmoneh esrei. But there are different girsaot, so clearly, exact wording isn't critical to fulfilling the requirement. So we already see that there are different levels of chiyuvim, and that we are more medayek on exact wording on some levels than others. Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to something like haftara than there is for Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719101803.GA11560@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos :> on the other side? : Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it : on the right side of the one who enters." : And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And : there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Besheim the Mordechai. The Shakh) says this is true even if the lefty lives alone or the whole family is lefty. Because mezuzah is a chiyuv on the house, not like tefillin's chiyuv, which is on the guf. The Be'eir Heiteiv quotes the Shakh, adding "vekhein nohagim". The AhS (s' 5) gives multiple reasons: 1- A house is made for anyone who lives there, not this specific person. Which might be the same explanation, might not. Seems related to the fact that we do not take mezuzos down when the next owner is Jewish. 2- He contrasts to tefillin, where the pasuq uses the word "yadkha" and we darshen "yad keihah", whereas "beisekha" is used to darshen the din that it's direction from which one enters. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 05:46:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84213f099d8841fb92a75e4a8d758038@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 04:27:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's > surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" > when it comes to something like haftara than there is for > Torah. We seem to agree that it *IS* possible to read the haftarah IMproperly, in contrast to R' Zev Sero, who wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be > read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't > be invalid. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 06:52:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> On 18/07/17 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas > chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, But that is key. What is a chiyuv, or rather in Hebrew a chovah? As anyone who's read an Ivrit bank statement or balance sheet can tell you, it's a liability. "Lotzeis y'dei chovah", or "being yotzei", means discharging that liability. If there is no chovah then there is nothing from which to exit; one cannot speak of being yotzei something that is not a chiyuv. Now krias hatorah is not a chovah on any individual. If one missed leining one shabbos one needn't make it up. Even if there are 10 men who missed it, and therefore could make it up if they wanted to, they don't. But it is a chovah on the tzibbur; if for some reason an entire community was unable to read the Torah one week they must make it up the next week by reading two sedros. If they don't then their liability has not been discharged. When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". Of course if it is to be read it should be read correctly. *Anything* that is read should be read correctly; there is no virtue in reading carelessly, as if one's words are of no importance so it doesn't matter if one butchers them. But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, and since not reading it leaves no undischarged liability on the community therefore a bad reading doesn't do so either. > Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim > correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is > that we're supposed to be doing? Suppose my argument is incorrect, and there *is* some obligation which the community must discharge? How long a reading counts? We know that the gemara's mention of 21 pesukim is merely a recommendation, since we routinely disregard it. So how small *can* we make it? By analogy with krias hatorah we can say that fewer than three pesukim is not a reading at all. But maybe the analogy is inapt, and the takana is fulfilled by *any* reading from the nevi'im, even just one pasuk, or perhaps even a single phrase. After all the whole takanah is simply in memory of the time when krias hatorah was banned, so we read nevi'im instead; so perhaps even a very small reading is enough to evoke this memory. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, >>> This illustrates why I suggested avoiding words like "chiyuv". Is our goal to be in a status of "no worse than not having read it at all"? Surely not! If we would be satisfied with such, then why do we bother reading it? Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I don't understand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:36:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: <51a89e09-5077-e733-156f-9027c6f70dc9@sero.name> On 19/07/17 13:20, Akiva Miller wrote: > > Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting > someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or > whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems > to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I > don't understand. I'm saying that it's not *required*, and therefore it becomes a highly situational question of balancing the reader's sensitivity and the tircha detzibura against a desire to hear a haftara that doesn't grate on the nerves. There's no "I'm sorry but if we don't correct him we won't be yotzei". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 12:43:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719194312.GA13614@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. : I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of : him that is generally accepted as accurate? Mequbalim in Itali had a mesorah from the Rama miFano (late 16th - early 17th cent) that beards were only appropriate in EY. The Ramchal's lack of beard was mentioned in the charges against him when he was drummed out of Italy for teaching a very messianic Qabbalah too soon after Shabbeta Zvi. Someone once showed me a Chasam Sofer and a Chidah which refer to this practice. But I couldn't find it. Meanwhile, I found Gilyon Maharshah (R' Shelomo Eiger), at the end of YD 181, says that kamah gedolei hamequbalim, talmidei haAri, who cut their beards with scissors. So, scissors is no my default assumption, which means they probably had some visible stuble, if not enough to qualify as a "beard". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 02:09:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> References: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> Message-ID: <19840673-e64a-c7e5-41b9-92f64dd10daf@zahav.net.il> Ikkar ha-din, someone who can't properly enunciate Hebrew letters isn't allowed to pray from the amud, never mind read the Torah or Haftorah. I don't know if there is a need to correct someone who consistently makes mistakes but there is certainly no reason to allow him to read at all if he can't do it properly. As an aside: one of my rabbis said that RYBS didn't correct someone in class who made mistakes reading the Gemara text but if someone made a mistake with a pasuk in the Gemara, then the Rav let him have it. Ben On 7/19/2017 12:31 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot > more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to > something like haftara than there is for Torah. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:11:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then > I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant. I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe "tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also. Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors, including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria Message-ID: RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing about the nature of the original obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 24 11:53:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah Message-ID: <20170724185345.GA20358@aishdas.org> In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61) discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads "leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving her a real gett. The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because "almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other misspellings that have only one possible intent. I was wondering if this is too fanciful: Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah" could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often given given in CE. Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could cross the readers mind. Maybe? Or too creative? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 06:47:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 12:40:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 08:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721@aishdas.org> One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 09:50:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:36:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:34:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:31:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:13:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 12:10:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:21:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:49:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> References: <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 23:38:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and historical. He brings parts of the midrashim about Avraham Avinu's early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for any other reason than to understand the historical facts. Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 26 July 2017 08:49 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Washing Clothes During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 2. The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 3. Menorah on Arch of Titus (Micha Berger via Avodah) 4. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 5. Showering During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 6. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 7. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 8. Re: alma vs. almah (elazar teitz via Avodah) 9. Re: alma vs. almah (Micha Berger via Avodah) 10. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 11. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/494286688/Ohr-Somayach-Logo-150sq_bigger.jpg] Showering During the Nine Days?! by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz tinyurl.com YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger , avodah The General Discussion Area for Avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"; format="flowed" On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , llevine at stevens.edu, Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 From: elazar teitz via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: elazar teitz , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:13:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? Message-ID: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:14:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: From "Religion Within Reason" by Steven Cahn: "To have faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . To describe someone as a person of faith suggests that the individual is strong-willed, fearless, and unwavering." Question to all - what percentage of the frum world have no doubts? How many don't think about it at all? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 05:11:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering during the Nine days In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: see: Is it permissible to shower during the Nine Days? http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/is-it-permissible-to-shower-during-nine.html [or -mi] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:09:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? I am in the middle of R' Mordechai Torczyner's (CC-ed, please include him in replies) shiurim on ribis. http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&category=0,234696 In particular, shiurim no.s 3-5 are about refunds. It's under 2 hrs total, and if you know something of the sugya, 1.25x speed is doable. The first lines of the source sheet to those shiurim is "Lamah yeish chiyuv lehachzir ribis?" http://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=529082 If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:17:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih but not a tikkun for the lav) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 19:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Torczyner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim >> was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. >> If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would >> be subject to maaser kesafim. ... > Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is > something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih > but not a tikkun for the lav) > KT Hi R' Joel, Indeed, the Ritva's view is that ribbis, once paid, belongs to the creditor. The creditor is obligated to pay it back, but the money is his for purposes including Kiddushin. Other applications include whether the borrower has the power to forgive the repayment, and whether the creditor's heirs have a duty to repay. Kol tuv, Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 10:19:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:19:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c1d64f4e4564ec7b59a1d187400d9bd@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." ============================== I'd appreciate specific examples ============================== Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== I finally tracked down a copy of the book and read through it-I?d simply say that one must underline heavily the statement ?the best of what was known to them in their time? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:09:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> I read Rachel Levmore's "Decentralizing Religious Authority" at Teaser: Overview Orthodox Jewish life used to be a simpler matter for those who wanted to lead one. There was an unspoken system in place. One could approach the local rabbi with a question. If he didn't know, scholars higher up in the "hierarchy" could weigh in until the question reached the "gadol hador." Despite the plurality of approaches which always existed, there was a definitive address whose opinion would be accepted by all (or almost all). Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone. The present circumstances, which have witnessed a breakdown of authority in general society coupled with the absence of an uncontested authoritative Torah scholar, has led to absurd situations. Lacking agreed-upon "gedolim" today, a void exists... Without any proper halakhic discourse between various rabbis who deem themselves to be leaders (even if they lack followers)... And so on, with a pretty sociological take on the problem, and how it applies to controversy over the halachic prenup. As is usual for me, I'm intrigued by the theoretical meta-issue. Given that we've entered an era that there is a dirth of gedolim whose rulings are followed across multiple communities and eidot, is there a significant change to how halakhah is done? And I'm not saying this is entirely about nisqatnu hadoros, and how today's gedolim aren't like those of my youth. Some of it is also the effects of universal education, google, social-media cynicism and echo chamber, and the social trends that cause the popularity of such social media, and other societal changes that made people less likely to respect authority that isn't fully in agreement with what they decided the truth should be. Returning to snipping from the article: The Internet is not the forum for halakhic rows. Rabbinic tradition prescribes that halakhic disputes be conducted in depth, not superficially through "virtual" statements in cyberspace. Proper procedure dictates that rabbinic forums be held where differences of opinions can be [19]discussed face to face. If that is not possible, then [20]scholarly books are written or [21]rabbinic articles published. Alarmist attempts to create fear among innocent lay-people cannot be considered credible halakhic writing. And: [I]t is not for naught that the Mishnah directs us to choose who is our rabbi: [24]aseh lekha rav. It is your responsibility as a God-fearing Jew to determine which rabbi you will follow, according to your perception of his righteousness, scholarship, and derekh--philosophy of Jewish life. For a variety of reasons, it should be a rabbi who lives in the same community as you, not least since he would then be familiar with the challenges and facts of your life. In the United States, the Rabbinical Council of America has assembled an impressive body of rabbinic figures... Visible links ... 19. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-plea-from-Jerusalem-to-the-worlds-Orthodox-rabbis-483210 20. https://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%94.html?id=FpsqQwAACAAJ 24. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en My first stab at answering my own question is to wonder how long halakhah has been centralized around a few globally known gedolim. >From the geonim until the late 19th century, were there any? And even when there was a few posqim the whole world turned to (eg the geonim), how many question did they go to the gedolim for? Wouldn't the size of the world back then mean that most questions were far more local, with the mara de'asra having much more of a final say, with consensus being more of a regional thing? If halachic authority is being decentralized, is that something new, or a reversion to the norm, to how non-Sanhedrin (or as the Rambam would have it, post-talmudic) halakhah supposed to work? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:19:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:32:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170728203214.GA6178@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:38:18AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and : historical... But not the fantastical ones. Zev and I are arguing over two things: 1- What that includes. Zev believes that the inclusion of miracles does not make a medrash fantastical. And in fact to believe so be apiqursus. (Actually, Zev said the believer would be an apiqoreis; but the question whether every believer in apiqursus is necessarily an apiqoreis is far afield. So I'll still to this less controversial subset of his claim.) I disagree. The Rambam associates nissim with nevu'ah. Someone who lacks the yedi'ah to get one isn't going to be around to witness the other. Therefore, aggadic stories of miracles placed after Tanakh are fantastical. While Hashem could still in principle perform nissim, the Rambam believes He wouldn't. (Even when the story is told of a member of chazal and their level of ruach haqodesh.) 2- Is there a default? Zev understands that the default is to take a medrash historically, unless it must be ruled out. Again, I disagree. Medrashim are described as metaphors and riddles. The story and its historical content just isn't an issue. You can't assume anything about a medrash being historical or ahistorical qua medrash. A good bit of history and a good tall tale can be used equally well for teaching by metaphor. Implying, you would need outside reason to assume one or the other. Which is how the Rambam then says that if the story doesn't fit how the world works physically, metaphysicall or theologically -- ie what that translation I googled up called "fantastic" -- insisting its historical when it can't be is silly. So: : Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are : other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could : attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Be happy, no one in this conversation does. In my understanding of Zev's view, the Rambam says that any medrash that isn't impossible (and nissim are possible) should be assumed to be historical. In my view, wondering about the historicity of the story misses the whole point of medrash. But if the story does not fit the way Hashem runs the universe -- which according to the Rambam would include miracle stories happening after Malakhi, and many of the stories before -- assume it is ahistorical. : early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at : the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for : any other reason than to understand the historical facts. The Rambam there has outside reason to believe that medrashic description; it fit what the Nabatean Agriculture implied abot the birth of their religion. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:00:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 05:00:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: True, especially in the MO/DL world. The site had an article a few months ago about how the MO/DL simply aren't looking for gedolim or they define the role of a gadol in way that strips him of much of this supposed authority. Ben On 7/28/2017 10:19 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 14:51:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From ?Religion Within Reason? by Steven Cahn: ?To have > faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes > beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . It depends on what he means by "putting aside" one's doubts. If "putting aside" means that one does have doubts, but denies this fact, and acts as if his faith was complete, this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and in general, A Bad Thing. It is comparable to one who feigns humility; the odds of an eventual implosion are too high. Rather, one must be honest about his doubts or questions, and work on resolving them. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:12:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Math behind kulan chayav Message-ID: <20170730031250.GA2671@aishdas.org> "Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince." Lachlan J. Gunn, et al. Proceedings of The Royal Society A. To be published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00900 Magazine article on said paper (H/T R/Dr Josh Backon): https://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html This paper focuses on the case of identifying a criminal in a police line-up, archeological evidence, and crypography testing, but I'll just use the first as an example. Sometimes a line-up is like picking out an apple out of a group of bananas. But usually, there is measurable probability of error. Whether it's 48% for a criminal who runs through the crime scene or the probability of mistaking one's kidnapper, there is always some probability of error. Now, what's the probability that no one makes that error? If 10 people unanimously identify the same person, is it more likely that no one made the rror, or that there is a systemic bias leading people to select the same member of the line-up? This paper shows the math (and has plots for various probabilities of error). It takes far fewer people than you'd think before a unanimous finding becomes suspicious. And the paper even cites the din as precedent: However, this is not necessarily the case and more confirmations can surprisingly disimprove our confidence that the defendant has been correctly identified as the perpetrator. This type of possibility was recognised intuitively in ancient times. Under ancient Jewish law [13], one could not be unanimously convicted of a capital crime -- it was held that the absence of even one dissenting opinion among the judges indicated that there must remain some form of undiscovered exculpatory evidence. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 07:48:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20). I am attending a Bris on Tisha B'Av. May I say "Mazal Tov" to the baby's father? If I meet a sick person on Tisha B'Av, may I wish him a "Refuah Shleimah" (a full recovery)? Are these also prohibited forms of greeting? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l rules that Mazal Tov for a recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B'Av since it is considered a blessing and not a greeting (Dirshu M.B. Beiurim and Musofim 554:63 citing Halichos Shlomo Bein HaMitzorim Vol. 15 Orchos Halacha 30). However, if at all possible, one should wait for a different day to express this Mazal Tov (Chut Sheini Vol. 2 p. 327). Our minhag is to perform a Bris on Tisha B'Av after the Kinos are completed, even if it is before Chatzos (mid-day), because of Zerizim makdimim l'Mitzvos, those who serve Hashem with alacrity, do mitzvos as quickly as possible (Mechaber, Rama 559:7 and Mishna Berurah ibid s.k. 26). Rav Shlomo Zalman was of the opinion that one can certainly say "Mazal Tov" at the Bris even before Chatzos (ibid). Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l however rules that the Mazal Tov for the Bris should only be said after Chatzos (Dirshu M.B. ibid citing Shmaitza D'Moshe p. 431). Although "Sholom Aleichim" should not be said to an Avel (one who is in mourning), the Gesher HaChaim (21:67:7) permits wishing "Refuah Shleima" to an Avel who is ill, since this is considered a blessing and not a greeting. For the same reason it is permitted on Tisha B'Av to wish a "Refuah Shleima" to a person who is ill (Dirshu M.B. ibid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 10:24:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:48pm GMT, Professor L. Levine quoted today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis: : Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" : "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend : is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20)... I'm going to use this to share the quick thought in my most recent blog post: The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. Tzom qal! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 11:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 31/07/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say > "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the > table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time that day is a fast rather than a yomtov. Though we still hold out hope that that was last year. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time : that day is a fast rather than a yomtov... That was obviously my intent. HOWEVER... We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent ge'ulah. So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust. After all, a commemoration of the ge'ulah after Galus Edom would be far more compelling. (I mentioned this to someone after Maariv, and he suggested that since neither July or August line up with our months that well, maybe it'll be Tish'ah beLeo. I don't think it has the same commemorative quality.) -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 03:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Menuchah Schwat via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. > So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it > Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust... Tisha baChamishi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 06:27:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 8/1/2017 6:01 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used to be a day of mourning?" Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 08:40:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:27:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: :> We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent :> ge'ulah. ... : Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which : is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha : B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used : to be a day of mourning?" What's that "um" about? The month names being Babylonian is a given sitting behind the sentence you quote. It's an often referred to Y-mi, RH 1:2 (vilna 6a) "De'amar R' Chanina: shemos chadashim alu beyadam miBavel." Then going on to mention some pre-Bavli month names found in Tanakh - Risanim, Bul, Ziv, showing how that all changes in Nechemia and Esther. Sure, when talking about 9 beAv the fast, we may well teach them we called it 9 beAv. But, as I suggested in the OP, maybe after the ge'ulah from Galus Edom, we'll do the same with the Julian / Gregorian month names. It will, after all, be a much more momentus ge'ulah, being final and lasting. If Anshei Keneses haGedolah thought it was appropriate to commemorate one ge'ulah in this manner, perhaps we should assume al achas kamah vekamah the end of our current galus would be commemorated similarly. On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:01:50PM +0300, Menuchah Schwat wrote: : Tisha baChamishi That's ambiguous. The chumash uses "bachodesh" to be clearer about which is the day count, and which is the month. Even if the month number is a cardinal ("-i" - fifTH) and the day is an ordinal (no suffix) the way you wrote them. You don't explain *why* you think we'd go back to the biblical system, rather than commemorating the ge'ulah from Galus Edom. After all, even the nevi'im didn't stick to the original numbered months. And I think my suggested parallel makes /some/ sense, if not necessarily what the Sanhedrin will end up deciding. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kinos: Hashem as Spaceman? In-Reply-To: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In Kinah #7 (Aholi Asher Ta'avta), the Kalir wrote "v'nihyeita ketas bechalal". To our ears this evokes images of loneliness and isolation, of someone surrounded by vacuum, light-years from anywhere and anyone, but what did "chalal" even mean to people with a Ptolemaic model (if that) of the universe? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:34:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 14:34:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av Message-ID: I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana ---------------------- I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it even is one), I think you are doing OK! -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 15:04:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <187d2f.769a1cbd.46b254d0@aol.com> From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah " >> There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. << Kol tuv, Ilana >>>>>> What you did instinctively was the right thing to do. Here is what Eliyahu Kitov says in _The Book of Our Heritage_: --quote-- It is prohibited to greet one's friend or acquaintance on Tisha B'Av, and it is even prohibited to say "Good morning." If, however, one is greeted, he should answer in a low tone, in order not to arouse resentment." --end quote-- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 21:51:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:51:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed Message-ID: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand that not everyone agrees with this position). Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can determine where the issur actually is? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 23:57:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB, quoting Rachel Levmore: > Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox > Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. > Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, > Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef were still alive and active. And if someone writes a similar article in another few decades, perhaps some of today's great poskim will have been added posthumously to the list... Not to be cynical, but could it be that one of the factors that makes a gadol universally recognized and accepted across Orthodoxy is that he is no longer among the living? Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 04:18:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:18:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed In-Reply-To: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> References: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 02/08/17 00:51, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har > Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess > information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can > certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand > that not everyone agrees with this position). > > Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur > karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can > determine where the issur actually is? *Any* case where we got new information. Take the classic case of two pieces of fat, one shuman and one chelev, but one doesn't know which is which, and then one later finds out. Before finding out both were assur; if one ate one of them beshogeg one brings an asham and the other piece remains assur. Once the new information is acquired the shuman becomes permitted, and if it transpired that one ate the chelev one must now bring a chatas. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 05:07:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from the OU: > The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra > Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as > greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" > (Mechaber 554:20). ... ... > > Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l rules that Mazal Tov for a > recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B?Av since it is > considered a blessing and not a greeting. ... ... I honestly don't understand the distinction that causes a "greeting" to be assur, while allowing a "blessing" to be mutar. I would think that "good morning" is a blessing. Aren't we praying that the other person's morning will be a good one? Perhaps the distinction is in the degree of kavana with which the "good morning" is given and received. After all, if it were said as a blessing, and received as one, then wouldn't we respond to the "good morning" with something like "amen"? Perhaps we can prove "good morning" to be a mere greeting, by pointing out that the response is usually a perfunctory repeat of the words "good morning", rather than anything serious. In this light, I confidently suggest that "How are you?" is definitely a greeting, because usually no one expects a response other than "okay" or "fine". What of the Mechaber's halacha of "Shalom Aleichem"? Surely we would agree that "Shalom Aleichem" is a blessing, no? After all, the response to "Shalom Aleichem" is "Aleichem Shalom", and I suspect (YMMV) that this is usually sincere rather than perfunctory. This brings us to the very core of this halacha: RSZA is drawing a line between greeting and blessing, and his halacha about Mazel Tov makes no sense (to me) unless "Shalom Aleichem" is defined as the prototypical *greeting*, and *not* a blessing. I can't imagine why this would be so, unless the Mechaber already felt that "Shalom Aleichem" was usually said perfunctorially. And that's sad. Can anyone offer a different analysis of these various phrases? Finally, it seems to me that "perfunctory" is a good summary of why we can bring American money into a bathroom, despite the words "In God We Trust" being on them: Those words have become a mere perfunctory slogan, and are no longer a real statement of faith. But if we have downgraded "Shalom Aleichem" from blessing to greeting with that same logic, then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? Do any other poskim make this distinction (either in Hilchos Tish'a B'av, or in Hilchos Aveilus, or for that matter in Hilchos What Not To Do Before Shacharis) between a greeting and a blessing? I'd love to see it defined more clearly. (There was a point in my life when if I'd sneeze and someone would say "God bless you", my response was "Amen". But I stopped that fairly quickly as people tended to find my response quite jarring. Maybe "God bless you" is also in the category of a perfunctory greeting that should not be done on Tish'a B'av?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 06:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170802132730.GB27820@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:57:08AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack : of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef : were still alive and active... In the US, recognition of R' Henkin and RMF were near-universal. And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. In Israel, I think the most recent candidates are pre-Shas ROY and RSZA. Although ROY's pesaqim are distinctly Sepharadi, I think it's commonly accepted that Yabia Omer is one of the few sefarim written in my lifetime people will be learning centuries from now. My mention of pre-Shas points to something I think is one of the causes. The search for "daas Torah" on political and societal matters makes enemies and cynics from among those who disagree. As for RSZA, RALichtenstein notes that he posessed a gedulah different in kind, not just degree [inevitable nisqatnu hadoros], than those we've looked up to since. I highly recommend "Im Da'at Ein, Manhigut Minayin?" . In it RAL defends da'as Torah as a doctrine, but questions if anyone since RSZA has been qualified to have it. To quote my own pitgam from past posts: A gadol is tall enough to see over our fences. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 09:05:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Eleazar Hakalir Message-ID: Yesterday during the fast, I was reading about R. Eleazar Hakalir, and was struck by the fact that historians aren't sure when he lived, with some saying he lived during Mishnaic times and others saying he lived as late as the 11th century. I realize that pinpointing dates during this time period is difficult, but a 900 year swing seems very unusual. Is anyone familiar with any recent papers or articles that attempts to zero in on the real date when this poet lived? Any additional info appreciated. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 18:25:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170803012513.GC16841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: :> I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, :> but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk :> hurting his feelings. : I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it : even is one), I think you are doing OK! I am wondering whether cheerfully (rather than pro-forma, yotzei-zain, replying so as not to offend) greeting someone in this situation despite 9 beAv is an instance of huterah or dekhuyah. (Thus overanalyzing your parenthetic remark.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 4 13:52:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: ?A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha *minyanim* questioned my saying "*y'yasheir kochacha*" to one of the *olim* (FWIW, I was the *bal qorei*) and, a few min.s later, brought to the *bimah* an Artscroll-*dinim* paragraph (from the back of its 9Av *siddur*) about not greeting someone; my response, as you might guess, was that "*y'yasheir* /*yeeshar kochacha*" was not a greeting. A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "*Shalom aleichem*", like M'gilas Rus' "*H' imachem* // *y'varechcha H'*", is also a blessing, but the "problem"? comes up when it's utilized as a greeting. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 5 23:33:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:33:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and fish blood? we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking liquid and almond milk? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within > their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 04:29:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <221F9E1E-C833-4DA1-83A2-577056D221BF@cox.net> R? Akiva wrote: ?.then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? I would say the reason is that Shalom is one of God?s Names. There was once a study done on people?s responses to ?How are you?? The respondent was supposed to answer in the negative. So instead of saying ?fine, thank you,? the response would be either ?terrible,? ?awful,? ?not good,? etc. and guess what? Something like 90% would not even have realized the negative response. In other words, it is very perfunctory when someone greets someone else in a normal setting. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 09:55:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table > and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher > but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. > What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and > fish blood? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? > we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table > at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond > milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking > liquid and almond milk? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring white milk looking liquid to the meaty dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? I suspect that in both cases, you are noting the explicit prohibition against doing these things and then you are presuming that these prohibitions apply *only* to these specific foods. Then, having made that presumption, you are asking why this distinction exists. I suggest that this is an improper procedure. It would be more correct to note the prohibition about these specific things, and then to *ASK* whether the prohibition also applies to similar things. You might find that the prohibition *does* extend to other things: Example #2: Soy milk. When pareve coffee creamers first became easily available, they were all soy-based. Yet the hashgachos warned us to serve it only in the original container, precisely because of the halacha you cite. Example #1: Suppose you have a lightly-cooked steak in your plate. Some "red blood looking liquid" is leaking out of the meat onto the plate, and is absorbed into the mashed potatoes. There's no issur against those potatoes. I'm pretty sure you can even mix it up into the potatoes deliberately, or dip your bread into it and eat it. But can you pour it out of the plate, into a glass and *drink* it? I don't know. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 13:44:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Lecture from Herzog Yemei Iyun Message-ID: <25bb89bf-b093-17da-6af7-7c80276a5d1a@zahav.net.il> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXeFDdchKY One of the lectures at this year's Yemei Iyun at Herzog: Rav Bazaq (Har Etzion) and Rav Kashtiel (Yeshivat Eli) explain a story in Nach (Isha HaShunamite) each in his way. In doing so, they try to demonstrate the differences in approach between what is called "Tanach b'Gova Einayim" and "HaKav". According to a story that I read about this lecture, this was the first time, after years and years of fighting (sometimes extremely fierce fighting) between proponents of each approach, that two people got together and gave a lesson together. There have been conferences where each side explains why their approach is good and the other side is wrong, but this is the first time that two people taught together. The lectures are in conversational Hebrew. Besides the demonstration of the different approaches, the lectures themselves about the story are fantastic. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 22:20:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:20:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom haAtzamut. Ben On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Micha Berger wrote: > >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. > > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? > > Akiva Miller \ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 07:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> References: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170807140514.GC15062@aishdas.org> : On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > R' Micha Berger wrote: : >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within : >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. : > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom : haAtzamut. I knew he was capable of it because I know several such stories. In the future, try to remember everything I wrote over all of Avodah's 19 years' history. It would save me time. I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning something that non-intuitive. Including when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 18:45:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:45:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with > the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning > something that non-intuitive. I was trying to come up with a snappy comeback, but the truth is that I simply have a rotten memory. Or, perhaps, the non-intuitive stuff is lost more easily, precisely because the anti-intuitiveness makes it more difficult for the brain to reconstruct the chain of links. We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. > when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. > RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if > it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." I wish I had been aware of these shades of gray when I was younger. Thank you for sharing. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 07:29:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:54PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is : how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is : the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult : to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical reasons given: 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish model.) 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the community. (The usual Chassidish model.) 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from DT in general when he left Agudah.) #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and not necessarily personal ones. Here we're talking about halakhah. So, I'd like to see if we can discuss the flipside of the discussion. Rather than asking about the heteronomy of following gedolei haposqim and why today's posqim seem to be failing getting that kind of fealty from certain large segments of the masses, what about the autonomy end? We have a very literate masses. More people can hit the primary sources themselves. And for those who can't, oir lack the patience to, there are more secondary and tertiary sources available in laaz than ever before. Joys of computerized publishing, which has made producing a book cheaper than ever. In this world, how much autonomy should a sho'el assume for himself? Which questions don't need asking? I presume a wide variety of opinion; I am more interested in various rationales than in any particular answer. What about the LOR -- do you have thoughts about when he should field the question, and when he should punt to his own rav or to a gadol? And does the ease at which anyone can be reached anywhere on the globe matter? Universal education, telecom, the web's ability to provide instand "research" are all bottom-up reasons our authority is being decentralized. With little to do on those elegable to assume that authority vs those of the past. Although the ease of LH and motzi sheim ra about those rabbanim with today's tech does enter into it to, r"l. If no one can become a navi in his childhood neighborhood, today's world makes it harder and harder to leave that effect. My own feeling is that anyone of East European ancestry who was not higi'ah lehora'ah who faces a new (for them) situation and doesn't get a sense of consensus from the Chayei Adam, Qitzur, MB and AhS should be asking a she'eilah. Notice that shows my own bias against popularist guides. Unless said guide was written by or recommended by one's poseiq as a viable resource. And in terms of autonomy vs heteronomy, I would be seeking a poseiq who (1) convinces me of the soundness of his reasoning; and (2) is willing to work with my givens on things like hashkafah and beliefs about metzi'us, where there are no rules of pesaq. As in RMF's pesaq about Hallel on YhA. (Tangent: Notice that there is little connection between pesaq and hashkafah on this one. RYBS, the Zionist, adhered to a meta-halakhah in which the barriers to saying Hallel are high, and came out against. As a compromise for LORs whose mispallelim won't tolerate that, he would advise the rav to pasqen that they omit the berakhah. Whereas RMF told Zionists that leshitasam, it would be appropriate to say Hellal WITH a berakhah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 08:45:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Kashrus of Braekel Message-ID: <20170808154508.GA12433@aishdas.org> They're now importing to EY from Europe a new breed of chicken, the braekel. See http://www.baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=37&ARTICLE_ID=90778 ... Members of the Eida Charedis' Vaad Shechita, prominent rabbonim and kashrus experts gathered in the home of Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita to determine if a new chicken, imported from Europe, has a kosher status. The discussion lasted for four hours! The new bird is called Braekel, and according to HaGaon HaRav Sternbuch, the bird is not kosher. However, in Bnei Brak, HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita has ruled it is kosher. The chicken was raised in Europe in an area void of Jews and Rav Sternbuch feels it lacks the `mesora' required. Wikipedia reports that it is indeed Gallus gallus domesticus, actual chicken in scientific taxonomy. And The Brakel is not cultivated for its meat, but merely for its egg-laying qualities. The breed is capable of producing 180 to 200 white eggs a year. This isn't remotely like the leghorn, a breed of chicken that has 2 "thumbs" and 2 other toes per claw, rather than the usual for kosher birds -- 1 "thumb" and 3. And it's accepted as kosher, in fact, the source of most of our eggs here in the states. But the breakel has normal simanim. For that matter, according to some pesaqim about why we can eat turkey (the context in which the kashrus of leghorn chickens most often comes up) we even accept Meleagris gallopavo, turkey, as being within the mesorah for chickens and they aren't even in the same genus! Third wiki-note, commenting on the two subtypes of braekel chicken that have since interbread into one: In the UK, USA and Australia, however, one can still find descendants of the Kempische Brakel under its old name 'Campine'. The Campine has evolved differently from the Brakel. The most noticeable difference is the hen-feathering of the rooster and the lower weight. We in the US are treating a bird that evolved (nishtanah hateva, if you prefer) from the breakel as kosher; no one requires checking if an egg is campine or not. It's not even like the mesorah has been silent; even if each breed of G. gallus domesticus needs it's own mesorah. So, lo zakhisi lehavin RMS's reluctance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 09:27:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> References: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <69647634-1f0b-8686-3b9b-f1fe2958ab37@sero.name> On 08/08/17 10:29, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning > to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical > reasons given: > > 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and > ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish > model.) > > 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the > community. (The usual Chassidish model.) > > 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would > ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to > Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the > current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and > doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, > and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from > DT in general when he left Agudah.) > > #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and > not necessarily personal ones. #4 All true knowledge is in the Torah, and finding it is a matter of making non-obvious connections. Therefore someone who has absorbed enough of it to do so can find the correct answer to anything, though he may not be able to explain how he did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 12:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hebrew manuscripts Message-ID: A database of ancient Hebrew manuscripts is now available at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLIS/en/ManuScript/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 18:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel Message-ID: . This past October (in Avodah 34:130) I mentioned a practice that I've seen growing in recent years, that of making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. I was learning about the issur of eating a large seudah on Erev Shabbos, and I came across something that seems very relevant to that practice. Form the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod Hashabbos" writes: "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 21:21:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:21:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142a02db-9198-65c3-9f5d-1b882fc5f525@sero.name> On 08/08/17 21:24, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of > appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, > making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." However, "to`ameha chayim zachu". Tasting a little of the Shabbos dishes, as opposed to gorging oneself on them, is very much kevod Shabbos, to increase the anticipation, like a sneak preview. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 11:58:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the : reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with : which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod : Hashabbos" writes: : "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of : appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, : making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." These motives have a nadka mina. If one fills up Fri afternoon on food they don't enjoy (perhaps it's healthful) or wouldn't eat in a formal or celebratory setting, one is running afoul of the SA's sevara, but not the PM's. In contrast, having significant amounts of Shabbos-appropriate food but not to the point of ruining one's appetite by the time maariv is over would be a problem according to the PM, but not the SA's sevara. Zev mentioned the case of tasting Shabbos food. The MB 250:2 uses the word "lit'om". The Machzor Vitri cites a lost Y-mi and invokes "to'ameha chaim zakhu" -- I think it's specifically te'imah. As in, less than a kezayis, no berakhah, not really eating. (Which is why I wrote last paragraph about "significant amounts".) It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. BUT.... The whole point of chulent is to have hot food in Shabbos lunch, to fulfill the obligation (SA OC 271:3) of making it the more special meal. (Rather than Fri night dinner. See Shaarei Teshuvah #1.) The AhS says one is not obligated to abstain from special Shabbos-lunch foods Fri night. But I'm talking about Thu night, altogether before Shabbos. O Seems to me that until someone finds a new "special Shabbos lunch food", Thu night chulent ought to be prohibited! Whereas one SHOULD just taste the chulent on Fri, and it is permitted (but sub-optimal) to have some with Fri night dinner. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 22:14:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:14:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Not just yeshiva guys. It has become a minor trendy thing for all sort of people to travel to Bnei Braq to get chulent. On 8/9/2017 8:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". > My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and > Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment > near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 04:43:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (=?utf-8?B?157XoNeV15fXlCDXqdeR15g=?= via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: The Mishna Brura clearly states that the reason for tasting on erev shabbat is "kedei letaken". This refers to tasting during the cooking process and does not fit with the whole kugel minhag. Menucha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 11:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] publishing trends Message-ID: I'd love to hear any analysis (or guesses) as to what are the percentages of different types of sefarim (both Hebrew and English) being published in the current era, how they differ from those in the past and, most interestingly to me, what are the drivers for these trends? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 15:37:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:37:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Milk, Blood and look alikes Message-ID: I fear that the Halachic posture of *Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to?* although making sense from a narrow perspective, actually invites Halachic disaster, and is quite incorrect. Halacha asserts all is permitted unless it is prohibited. Here is an example in which the Shach seems to assert that Maris Ayin is limited to its narrow description and is not to be expanded according to what makes sense to us. BP, those that have been found within a Shechted cow, require Shechita once they have walked about. Before they have walked about they do not require Shechita. However, Ben PeKuAh can also be created via natural breeding which goes on forever. So we can have a large herd of BP none of which are identifiable as BP. The Mechaber Paskens without qualifying, *until they have walked about* - that the naturally born BP all require Shechita. This would appear to suggest that they require Shechita even before they have walked about. And there is good reason to understand this to be the Halacha, after all in this herd there is absolutely no way to identify them as BP whereas those found in a Shechted mother are readily identified as being BP. And I presume that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, the Shach makes it clear that the decree that requires that they be Shechted applies only after they have walked about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 11 07:15:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Summer and Travel Videos Message-ID: <1502460917652.98832@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y8drmxm3 Kosher Summer and Travel Videos As you prepare to fire up the grill for the summer or hit the road on vacation, countless Kashrut issues arise: Can I cook on a public grill in a park? Can I use a hotel room microwave? How should one pray on an airplane? These commonly asked questions and many more will be answered in our 2017 Kosher summer and travel series. Your esteemed guide through this halachic journey? It's none other than Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of OU Kosher. View the questions and answers below! Can you cook on a BBQ that has previously been used for Non-Kosher meat? Can meat and fish be cooked on the same BBQ? Can you eat cut fruit from an uncertified vendor? Can you buy coffee from a non-kosher establishment or a kiosk? May you purchase salad from an uncertified entity when traveling on the road? What products am I permitted to eat from an ice cream store? What are the Halachos in regards to prayer on an airplane? What are the Kashrut issues with airline meals? Can in-room hotel microwaves be used without kashering? Is it permissible to take antihistamines or other medication without certification? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 13 06:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] piskei rid Message-ID: <591d6b28af34484fac75d4f2918958a9@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The bar ilan database notes that its version is from Yad Ha-Rav Herzog. Does anyone have a copy that can see who authored the footnotes? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 02:06:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 07:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken Message-ID: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. See the above URL for more. See also http://tinyurl.com/yckl2bqj YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 08:23:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From > http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h > Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that > he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. Since when is rabbi M any sort if authority in The USA? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 11:28:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:28:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> This whole thing reminds me of the one-a-generation broohaha over leghorn chickens. Leghorns and braekels are chickens, much the way chihuahuas are dogs, despire being rather unique looking dogs -- or chickens. Like other chickens, they are Gallus gallus domesticus. Not even a remote question of problems interbreeding. Every 20 years or so someone notices that the leghorn chicken has two "thumbs" pointing back, and two toes pointing forward, rather than the usual 3-and-1 we expect for kosher birds. And yet, white leghorns make beautifully white eggs, and so it is the breed most American chicken eggs come from. Actually, both it and the braekel chicken do indeed grab the perch in a 2-and-2 grip, once comfortably on it, they go to the 3-and-1 of the rest of the species. And like the leghorn chicken, the braekel chicken is a source of eggs in the US. However, not under the name "braekel". But America's campine chicken, which has the same kind of foot, was breed from the Kempishe Breakel. The question was resolved quite a while ago, which is why we in the US don't have to chase down which breed of chicken an egg came from. So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was raised, we were about to assur, and then it was found that in much of the world zebu was already being eaten as cow. And in fact, MOST tefillin made from gasos are zebu leather! The breakel, which is a normal enough part of the general chicken gene pool to get the usual taxonomical name -- Gallus gallus domesticus. But there are two subspecies of cow: those without a hump between their shoulder are Bos taurus taurus. Those that have such a hump, eg zebu, are Bos taurus indicus. But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can interbreed and produce fertile young, in which case how did any of these questions get started? The mesorah for chickens must therefore include oddballs of the min like leghorn, braekel and campine breeds, and that for cows must include the full min, both subspecies. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 13:42:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <692953b1-38ed-f530-7beb-1656bdc7942d@sero.name> On 14/08/17 14:28, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was > raised, we were about to assur, Very few were about to asser, because the view that a mesorah is needed for mammals is very much a daas yochid. > But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can > interbreed and produce fertile young This is true for mammals, not necessarily for birds. I'd put a different argument: Let's suppose that it *is* a new min, for which no mesorah can exist because it didn't exist until relatively recently. For that very reason we can be 100% certain that it isn't one of the 24 listed species, and therefore doesn't need a mesorah. And if it's *not* a new min then it's a chicken, and once again kosher (except according to Anan ben David y"sh). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 06:36:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:36:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn't this an issue, since they are using less than a revi'is (approximately 3.3 oz. - minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber's question) A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi'is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi'is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi'is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m'lo lugmav (half a revi'is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 14:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170815214945.GA13601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including :> the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha :> follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a :> shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow :> their minhag. Regardless of the shei'ur, so this is perhaps tangential.... The AhS talks about the difficulty in obtaining real wine, the kashrus of "wine" from soaked raisins, and thus the schnapps option. I wonder if so many rabbeim would have insisted on making qiddush on schnapps at all if wine were an affordable option where they lived. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 15:24:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: . R' Ben Waxman asked: > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot > right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the > members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset > on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the > right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine > no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose > money? My first thought is that this is a great example of a question that should be addressed to the rav of the beit knesset. There are so many factors that need to be weighed against each other, such as how badly the shul needs the money, and how many hurt feelings will be created by giving the wrong answer. As regards the comment "a sale is a sale" -- I'm not so sure. Sounds like a "davar shelo ba laolam" to me. Especially since we are considering the real possibility that a kohen guest might show up, rendering the auction questionable. Just my two grush. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 02:54:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Use of Stone Keilim During Bayis Sheini Message-ID: <20170816095450.GA3826@aishdas.org> See http://www.timesofisrael.com/2000-year-old-stone-workshop-discovered-near-where-jesus-turned-water-into-wine or http://j.mp/2v1gxan The Times of Israel By Amanda Borschel-Dan August 10, 2017, 11:51 am 2,000-year-old stone workshop discovered near where Jesus turned water into Only four Second Temple stoneware production centers have been unearthed in Israel Because it was immune to ritual impurity, the use of stoneware was rife among Jews during the Roman era ... A large 2,000-year-old Second Temple period chalkstone quarry and workshop was discovered at Reina in lower Galilee by a team of archaeologists headed by Dr. Yonatan Adler... A manmade chalkstone quarry cave was recently discovered between between Nazareth and the village of Kana. What is unique in this excavation is the additional find of a stoneware workshop -- one of only four in Israel. Although pottery was also in use during this period, archaeological digs around the region point to an uptick in stoneware during the Second Temple period -- likely for ritual purity reasons, as attested in the Talmud. "In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee also used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone," said Adler. ... "According to ancient Jewish ritual law, vessels made of pottery are easily made impure and must be broken. Stone, on the other hand, was thought to be a material which can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce some of their everyday tableware from stone," he said. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 04:45:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:45:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh Message-ID: . At first, I was going to pose these nitpicky questions on our Mesorah list. But then I found some answers, and I decided to share my journey with the whole chevra. If it doesn't put you to sleep from boredom, please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Shmos 1:10 - Paro starts panicking over the Jewish Problem. First, they're multiplying, and then, "ki sikrena milchama..." 1. What is the root of Sikrena? Kuf resh aleph, or kuf resh heh? 2a. If it is kuf resh heh - "if war happens" - then what is the aleph for? Is this a kri/ksiv situation? Does anyone explicitly refer to it as a kri/ksiv? 2b. If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? Why does every single translation and peirush render it as "if war occurs", or similar? Or do you know of any exceptions that I couldn't find? 3. What form is this word? My guess is that it is Kal, future, 3rd person feminine plural: "They(f) will...". That fits well with "proclaim", if "they(f)" refers to the attacking nations. But if the root is kuf resh heh, I don't know why the plural would be used. Is "milchama" some sort of plural or collective noun? Other relevant information: RSR Hirsch says that "sikrena" is a plural form, and therefore "milchama" is probably not the subject but the object. for the word's meaning, he refers us to Yeshaya 41:22, where this same word occurs. But as I see it, these words are not spelled the same: Where Shemos spells it with an aleph, Yeshaya has a yud. (I suppose Rav Hirsch considers this difference insignificant, but I'm not knowledgable enough to understand why.) I did find one lone voice who says that the root of "sikrena" is "read/call" and not "happen/occur". Namely, Mandelkern's Concordance. Yeshaya 41:22 appears on 1047d, in the root kuf-resh-heh. But he places our pasuk, Shemos 1:10, on 1043c, in the root kuf-resh-aleph. Another data point from Mandelkern: His opinion is that "sikrena" in Shemos 1:10 is a third-person plural verb. This is different from the second-person plural verb, which is spelled exactly the same, and appears in Rus 1:20 and 1:21, and in the Concordance on 1042a. I suspect that Mandelkern would endorse "*they* will proclaim war" as a correct translation. Finally, I tried a non-Jewish website devoted to translation issues. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7122.htm is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, and other similar sources. I probably could have gotten the same information from Mandelkern, but seeing their English translation on-screen made these examples jump out at me: Bereshis 42:4 - [Yaakov] said, "Lest disaster *happen* [to Binyamin]." Bereshis 49:1 - Yaakov said, "... I will tell you what will *happen* to you at the end of days." Vayikra 10:19 - Aharon told Moshe, "... such has *happened* to me..." Devarim 22:6 - When you *happen* upon a bird's nest... In all of the above, the Torah's word is spelled with a kuf-resh-ALEPH root. I find myself forced to concede that there is strong evidence (dare I call it "proof"?) that in addition to the usual meanings "read" and "call", kuf-resh-aleph can also mean "happen". Having said that, I was tempted to take this even farther. That page on BibleHub brings a lot examples where they translate kuf-resh-aleph as "meet". At first glance, I did not take it seriously; I felt that our common translation as "call" was more appropriate. For example, Shemos 5:3. where Moshe and Aharon tell Paro, "The God of the Hebrews nikra to us, so let us go for three days..." In my mind, this meant "Hashem called to us", and I rejected BibleHub's translation of "... has met with us." But then I read ("happened upon"? pun intended!) ArtScroll's translation, which is "...happened upon us." I was surprised by this, but I was even more surprised when I saw RSR Hirsch on this pasuk, where he tells us to look at Shemos 3:18, where he shows that these two roots (kuf resh aleph and kuf resh heh) are indeed similar. And so I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to translate Shemos 1:10 as "when a war happens". Does all this teach us anything about the small aleph in Vayikra 1:1? I leave that as an exercize for the reader. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 10:41:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish > or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? I don't think "proclaiming war" is something that can even happen in Hebrew. One can call *for* war, but the lamed is necessary. I can't think of any direct examples right now, but consider the parallel "vekarasa eleha leshalom". On the other hand we do have "ukrasem deror". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:25:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected cohen guest is the only option. If it is the aliyah itself which is sold then the cohen should be able to claim the shul had no right to sell it, and the choshen mishpat shailah is whether the shul or the buyer takes the loss. Obviously just my opinion not meant to second guess the mara d'atra. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? > > If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? > > If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:34:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:18 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I wonder if everyone agrees with the Machstzis Hashekel, i.e., would everyone agree that if you hold like the Taz the you can make kiddush on it? I was startled by the conclusion until I realized that "their minhag" refers to their own minhag, the the minhag of the Rebbes mentioned in the previous sentence. Still odd though, surely this is a psak halacha not a minhag. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn?t this an issue, since they are using less than a revi?is (approximately 3.3 oz. ? minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber?s question) > A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi?is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi?is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. > > Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi?is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m?lo lugmav (half a revi?is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. > > Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 15:22:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502922161954.91323@stevens.edu> Please see the article sent to me by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky that I have posted at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 04:55:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate Message-ID: A work around for agunot wanting to have kids: Rav Yitzhaq Yosef* ruled that an IVF child isn't a mamzer in a case of a married woman having her egg fertilized with the sperm of a man who who isn't her husband. Now an MK wants to use this psak to enable agunot to conceive via IVF and her kids won't have mamzerut problems (and have the treatment paid for by the state). * Yes other rabbis have given this ruling but when the Chief Rabbi gives a psak it gives a stronger basis for a knesset member to propose a law. See the article for more details (Hebrew): http://bit.ly/2uOmI6x I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A single woman is allowed to get IVF. Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 09:27:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170818162719.GF5755@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:25:19PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen : in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is : the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected : cohen guest is the only option... While I agree with that conclusion, the answer to your opening question was in RBW's post: :> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right :> after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are :> kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning... They sold the aliyah on the presumption that, as usual. And in fact, this "chazaqah" is so solid, RBS asked this eventually as a hypothetical; the wording he thought of was "were ... to come" not "when ... does come". Perhaps there was originally an al-tenai that simply people no longer remember. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:46:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818174604.GH5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:52:59PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha : minyanim questioned my saying "y'yasheir kochacha" to one of the olim ... : A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) : dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "Shalom aleichem", like M'gilas Rus' "H' : imachem // y'varechcha H'", is also a blessing, but the "problem" comes : up when it's utilized as a greeting. My rule: If said as a social pleasantry, or as a mindless playback of a recording your parents / society taught you, it's a greeting. But if you care more about whether the RBSO heard you than the person you're saying it about, it's a berakhah. And usually it's somewhere between those poles. With a skew toward the greeing end. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:02:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:02:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A : single woman is allowed to get IVF. I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei mi shelo nivra". But... This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless worse than never existing at all? (I adapted that line from arguments about aborting a fetus that tests positive for Downs. How many people with Downs hate their life so much that they regret existing?) : Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Marriage as described in Bereishis 1, perhaps. "Peru urevu umil'u es ha'aetz". But the intimacy of Bereishis 2 is not adressed "... al kein ya'azov ish es aviv ve'es imo, vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu lebasar echad". My version of "the talk" with my boys started with these two pesuqim. Explaining that relations are to serve these two functions. And also, while birth control can address one of these two, extramarital relations outside of "vedavaq be'isho" translate into exercises in weakening that bond, that gift HQBH gave us. (Adding now, as this bit would go over their heads: to approximate Adam Qadmon as humanity is described before Adam and Chavah are made from one into two.) And then, after establishing theological context, the talk continued on the usual biological and psychological planes. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 11:27:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses in Judaism Message-ID: R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/ He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American Eclipse of 2017: Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 14:10:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: . On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients. I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. > ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient > with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the > well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov > yisroel", just like many people today. And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then what did they do wrong? The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good description of it, I'd appreciate it.) The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food that even went by another name. And the very first time that they asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained. In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product. Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I wrote here 15 years ago: (http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03) > Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free > breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored > liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I > understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that > assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that > one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff, > and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap > orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice, > isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 11:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:29:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> References: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <529972d5-f946-74d5-e97e-26fbf8cbced3@starways.net> On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural > : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any > : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a > : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A > : single woman is allowed to get IVF. > > I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei > mi shelo nivra". But... I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view. > This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless > worse than never existing at all? Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 17:30:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:30:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, Cheilev and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. Is this correct? Can anyone offer some illumination? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 21:43:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4577e69b-191e-24b3-90cc-757555b83cd6@sero.name> On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... > Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I > don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at their lodgings. Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream? A grocery. >> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient >> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the >> well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov >> yisroel", just like many people today. > And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then > what did they do wrong? This is precisely the AhS's point. He strongly rejects the view of those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens when one does so. > > The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are > "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". > (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good > description of it, I'd appreciate it.) It's schmant in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet cream for coffee. Cf smetana, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour cream is zoyer shmetene. > The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to > what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food technology made everything complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel. (This is why the term "cholov stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used. RMF rejects the idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils its requirements.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 07:17:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: ' R' Zev Sero wrote: > No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type > of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in > Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least > one could before modern food technology made everything > complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to > *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, > etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. Summary: I concede. Longer version: I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as a resident of the 5700s. I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned about such things. I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the, there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly, there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them. There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in 1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the drivers for this change. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 12:04:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:04:07 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: <201708201904.v7KJ47OS022554@hsdm.com> >And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") . From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 22:11:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 01:11:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. > So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, > Cheilev > and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly > think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev. I don't know whether deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something that is identical to chelev so there is no question. (The difference may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone will think it's chelev? Obviously we don't worry about that because an observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to that conclusion?) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 08:37:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk Message-ID: . Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, but we don't hold like him. In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking, eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di" come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds. Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a - <<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds, who don't have mother's milk. >>> Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says it's d'rabanan. We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav", WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di" would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we learn from the word "imo"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 06:32:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse Message-ID: <1503322352892.87303@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 15:09:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis Message-ID: . Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads: > Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so > which bracha should be said? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for > which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the > acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and > great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. > It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. > Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe- > inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? > > Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and > Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh > Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which > are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states > that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's > sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many > commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. > As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses > are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. > > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of anyone else who comments on this question? Thanks! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 16:06:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses : > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah : > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). : : Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of : anyone else who comments on this question? The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses. The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human sin. Wholesale, not retail. The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer to the question in his words. The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who continue ignoring such signs. In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence". At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who aren't religiously moved by it. Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally used language of Wisdom and Intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 17:07:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> References: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b@sero.name> > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer > to the question in his words. That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's servant, the moon. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 04:11:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? Message-ID: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Something doesn?t add up. Every 28 years around April 8th, we recite the birkat hachama (last time, April 8th 2009, next time, April 8th 20037). Every month we recite the blessing over the moon. And as I learned, the ?oseh ma?aseh b?reshis? is over lightening but not over thunder and volcanoes. For thunder and volcanoes I thought we say ?shekocho g?vuroso malei olam.? Regarding an eclipse as an incredible and awe inspiring event, so is being in the presence of a child being born or in the presence of a person having being declared dead, resuscitated back to life. Is there a b?rocho for that? > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 07:16:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170822141651.LBEF22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> I heard a very interesting shiur at yutorah. Everything below was mentioned, plus one other thing: a great explanation of a gemara (or another Chazal) that says something like: "X" comes into the world (X might have been eclipses, or, if not, something related in some way) with four reasons: - not appropriately euglogizing an av beis din - (I can't remember) - homosexuality - the death of two brothers at once (or in battle) (He started the connection my explaining the ma'aseh of the moon's complaint against H' at creation . . . ) Here's the problem with my post: - I got to it via the "featured shiruim" on my YUTorah phone app -- and it's not there now. I went to the desktop site, and I can't seem to find it - I don't remember who it was (except that the rav who gave it over had a middle or eastern European accent) (My excuse: I went to western South Carolina to see the eclipse. The 8 hour drive home turned into almost 13 hours because of traffic, and I drove alone. I heard a lot of shiurim and my mind is pretty fuzzy . . . ) FWIW, -- Sholom At 05:40 AM 8/22/2017, via Avodah wrote: >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 >From: Zev Sero via Avodah >To: Avodah >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis >Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b at sero.name> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't > see an answer > > to the question in his words. > >That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points >out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that >eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or >moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means >that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens >is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or >mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, >even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise >and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when >Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. > >This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural >phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but >Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind >Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. > >This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry >at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them >and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't >they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it >removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun >is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's >servant, the moon. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 17:47:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:47:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness Message-ID: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> There was a discussion on Areivim about a particular person who was accused of committing a particularly evil crime. Someone posted, among other comments, ?I will add that the "rabbi" who committed these horrific acts is objectively G-dless. Apikores is too mild a term for him.? My response to this fits more for Avodah than Areivim: I know this man and most of the other players in this story. And while I haven?t interviewed him recently to test R?n TK?s assertion, it is my opinion that as reprehensible as these events are, it doesn?t mean that the person who committed them is Godless. Is any sinner Godless? More likely, a sinner like this carries around a huge measure of denial and/or conflict. But that doesn?t make him or her Godless. The Gemara says, in fact, that some sinners ? during the moment they?re sinning(!) are close to Hashem (Berachos 63a). I?ll elaborate: In truth, the argument can be made that any time a person sins he or she is Godless. Tomer Devorah in the first perek makes the contrapositive point ? that Shuras HaDin would dictate that Hashem remove himself from a person at the time of his sin, resulting in the sinner?s instant death. His response to that is that Hashem?s mercy is what keeps the person alive ? Hashem does not remove himself from the person, and keeps sustaining him or her even while he or she is sinning with the very power invested by Hashem in them that enables them to sin. But probably most times well-meaning people sin, their sin comes from one of the following three: ignorance, negligence, or lust. Ignorance: Not knowing or remembering something is forbidden. Negligence: Not caring enough to take care not to inadvertently sin. Lust: Being blinded to the evil that one is doing because of the strong desire to benefit from it. In all those cases, the person who is sinning is not thinking about Hashem. He?s ? in your terms ? ?objectively Godless.? But can he really be called that? Let?s talk about two extremes: The person who walks in front of another person who is saying Shemoneh Esrei (relatively minor), vs. the person who is not shomer negiah (relatively major). In both those cases it?s not that the person is not thinking about Hashem (which he admittedly is not), but that the person is not thinking about sin. Or, more succinctly, the person is just not thinking. Not Godless, but thought-less. And that can sum up all of the three categories ? ignorance, negligence, and lust cause people to sin by not thinking. So what happens when a person is a thinker? There are two possibilities. The person can be like Nimrod, "???? ????? ??????? ????? ??" ? he knows Hashem and doesn?t listen to him, although he recognized Hashem?s existence. That?s a plain old Rasha. But he?s not Godless ? ???? ?????. The second possibility is that that person does think about Hashem. He does think about his actions. He does know how bad it is what he?s doing. In other areas, not his weakness, he does keep to Hashem?s will. He is ???? ????? but he?s not ?????? ????? ??. Such a person, I think, is incredibly conflicted. He knows about Hashem and he?s rebelling against him on the one hand, while trying to obey him on the other. That person might be evil, might be scum of the earth, but he?s not Godless. On the contrary. And although we have to condemn such a person and his horrible actions, and we don?t envy his punishment in the World to Come, we might also be a little jealous of his relationship with Hashem. This may well be the reason the Gemara tells us that a person who says Lashon Hara about a talmid chacham falls in Gehennom, since the talmid chacham definitely did Teshuvah (Berachos 19a). How do we know he definitely did teshuvah? Because a talmid chacham, by definition, is a thinker. He didn?t indulge in non-thinking ? that?s not in his nature. And even if he had a moment of weakness and did something wrong, he certainly rebounded and regretted it the next day. (Contrast the talmid chacham with the non-thinker of before ? he just continues blissfully on with his life not realizing or caring that he sinned. That?s why we are not required to presume that he did Teshuvah.) A Godless person, properly defined, is one who denies Hashem?s existence completely. We have no basis, in this case or in many others, to assert that those are the circumstances we?re dealing with. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 23:43:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 06:43:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? On the topic Kvct Joel Rich Sent from my iPhone THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 21:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:06 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: It seems we agree that there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you are, eating what looks for all intents and purposes, to be Cheilev Yet Chazal were not Gozer to prohibit this due to Maris Ayin. Is the physical difference between Cheilev and Shuman more than the difference between fish blood and animal blood? Would there be no confusion between red coloured liquids, like wine and animal blood? There is no MA on Ben PeKuAh that is salvaged as a non-fully-gestated, no matter how long it lives and no matter how much it looks smells tastes and feels like an ordinary beast. Why is that so? Proposing that - IT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO CHEILEV SO THERE IS NO QUESTION - seems a little fantastic And indeed we should ask - why don't we worry that onlookers will think that beef Shuman is Cheilev? Is it OBVIOUS that there is no reason to suspect it is Cheilev, so why jump to that conclusion? I do not think so. I suspect that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies is as a product similar to the prohibited product. Perhaps like the position that Min BeMino is determined by name not by taste, Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 04:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Since when? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 07:09:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> References: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170823140919.GB32207@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:28AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: :> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat : Since when? Tangent: One of my pet peeves about Brisker derekh is how "chalos sheim" often is just begging the question. X needs a P, or else it doesn't really have the chalos sheim X. It's an empty statement, just saying that P is needed because the category needs P. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:13:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:13:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tax Evasion and Esrog purchasing In-Reply-To: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> References: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170825191326.GA15871@aishdas.org> Back in Sep 2014 Every year I mention the problem of buying an esrog from someone who > offers a better price if you pay in cash. Last year I was able to shift > from "li nir'eh it's a problem". RHSchachter reports that according to > RJBSoloveitchik, helping the seller evade taxes in this way is lifnei iver > (deOraisa, not "just" the derabbanan of mesayeia) and THE ESROG IS PASUL. They just put R' Asher Weiss's teshuvah on this subject up at : Tvunah in English Question: I recently went to a store and was told if a pay in cash then i would not need to pay taxes. If it is obvious that by me paying in taxes the store owner would not pay the proper tax on this sale to the government, am I allowed to do such a purchase or there is a problem of [lifnei iveir lo sisein mikhshol]. Answer: This would not seem to be the actual prohibition of Lifnei Iver as cash payment is inherently permissible and he can and may still pay taxes. There are a number of reasons a person would prefer cash payments, aside from tax evasion. At the same time, with regards to taxes we should generally assume Dina Demalchusa Dina and not encourage or promote tax evasion. It would seem RAW agrees on the halakhah, but disagrees that you should be chosheish that the preference for cash is due to tax evasion. Although in the first sentence the sho'el says the salesman told him so outright!? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:29:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:29:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Eilu va'Eilu Message-ID: <20170825192948.GA17720@aishdas.org> Because how can I /not/ share something on eilu va'eilu? -micha ----- Forwarded message from torahweb at torahweb.org ----- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:31:45 -0400 From: torahweb at torahweb.org Subject: updates to Rav Schachter's dvar Torah To: weeklydt at torahweb.org TorahWeb EILU V'EILU Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim -- both opinions are the words of the Living G-d." although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she'ha'Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She'b'al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah. The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether -- according to their perspective -- the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim." This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions imply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v'eilu. Even when we do apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" it does not mean that halacha l'ma'aseh one has the right to follow either opinion. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v'eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, "Beis Shamai b'makom Beis Hille eina Mishna", i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don't even consider the views of Beis Shamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d'hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b'chutz la'aretzm, even when dealing with a d'oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l'hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l'ma'aseh. (See my sefer, B'Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.) Likewise the poskim assume that when you have a shitah y'chida'ah, a lone opinion among poskim not shared by others, this view also does not constitute a slight safeik. The Beis Shmuel (Shulchan Aruch, Even HoEzer siman 90, s'if kattan 6) thinks that even if the Rambam agrees with the Ri Migash on an position not agreed upon by other poskim, this view should be totally ignored, since the Rambam was so taken by the genius of the Ri Migash (his father's rebbe), and would naturally be inclined to accept his opinion without even thinking twice (even though in several instances the Rambam does reject his opinion), this psak would be considered a shitah y'chida'ah and should be totally ignored. It was recently reported that a certain "beis din" permitted a married woman to remarry without a get, because it was ascertained that her husband was not Sabbath observant at the time he married her, and the halacha considers one who is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia to be like a non-Jew. And, they reasoned, we all know that if a non-Jew marries a Jewish woman the marriage does not take effect. This ruling is absolutely scandalous. First of all, the consensus of recent poskim has been that the concept of mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia doesn't apply today since so many Jews are not shomer Shabbos and the term "b'farhesia" has the connotation that this individual is breaking the discipline in the community (Chazon Ish and Binyan Tzion.) The members of this "beis din" would most certainly have been the first to say that such a Jew would not cause wine he touched to become prohibited because he is not considered to be like a non-Jew. More importantly, the view that a Jew who is treated as a non-Jew because he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia can't effectively marry a Jewish woman is totally ignored, because it is against an explicit gemara (Yevamos 47b) that states that even if a Jew converts to another religion and marries a Jewish woman the marriage does in fact take effect. We can't apply the concept of eilu v'eilu to this view; it is simply incorrect. Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v'eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v'eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does notmean that it has ramifications halacha l'ma'aseh. There are rules and regulations regarding psak halacha; this discipline is not hefker (is not a free for all.) The parsha tells us that the halachic positions of the Beis Din Hagadol are binding on all Jews. The Sanhedrin was a group of Torah scholars who were clearly head and shoulders above all of their contemporaries. They were the gedolei hador (the Torah giants of their generation), and the gedolei hador have the status of rabo muvhak for their entire generation, even for those who never even met them (see Tosafos on Berachos 31b and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 244:10.) The halachic positions of one's rebbe muvhak are binding on him, and the halachic views of the gedolei hador (who are clearly head and shoulders above the other Torah scholars of their generation) may not be ignored. None of the members of the aforementioned "beis din" are recognized by anyone as belonging to the category of gedolei hador, and even if it had been a case where we would apply eilu v'eilu, since the gedolei hador have unanimously rejected it for generations, no one today who is not in the category of gedolei hador has the right to go against this rejection! Rabbinic leaders throughout the generations are always concerned with the plight of agunos, but coming up with non-halachic solutions is not the Orthodox way. The Talmud Yerushalmi seems to hold that the concept of pikuach nefesh doesn't only apply when one's life is in danger, but also if one's life will be made extremely miserable this too falls under the category of pikuach nefesh, which allows one to violate Torah laws. The Yerushalmi (quoted by Rav Yosef Engle in Teshuvas Aguna) says that we would have allowed every agunah to violate the prohibition of adultery if not for the fact that we are dealing with gilui arayos (forbidden marriages) where the halacha does not permit one to violate the mitzvah even in a case of literal pikuach nefesh -- even to save one's life. The aforementioned "beis din" is doing a disservice to the Orthodox Jewish community at large, and specifically to these poor agunos, by misleading them with absolutely scandalously fallacious piskei halacha. Let the public beware! One must be of the caliber of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski in his generation or Rav Moshe Feinstein in the past generation in order to determine in a given case if the halacha permits a woman to get remarried without a get. POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the aforementioned "beis din", also see important letter from Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz regarding the "International Beit Din" . Copyright (c) 2017 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 09:42:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Poem For Elul Message-ID: <20170827164248.GA14698@aishdas.org> Saw on Facebook and wanted to share. I am not sure if R Bin Goldman intended the title to be "a poem for elul" (sic) and the first line read (in Hebrew, my transliteration) "Lekha Amar Libi" or if he wrote a poem titled "Lekha Amar Libi, which he introduced as a poem for Elul. I am presenting it as if the latter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Lekha Amar Libi [R'] Bin Goldman My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:18:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach Message-ID: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)? If not, where is its force grounded? Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own law as long as it doesn?t contradict the seven? Who would be eligible to be on a Bnai Noach court and how much interpretive independence would they have? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:19:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Moshe and aharon Message-ID: <846178C1-4E50-4DC0-9C2B-7D9B22F0E745@sibson.com> Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b ) two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to debate] Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse Kt Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 18:53:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:10 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... Message-ID: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin presented in an earlier message. The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product. Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting - please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when? Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera, see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its - Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues] R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. Would you please explain how and/or why? = = = = = = Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are 3 issues that require clarification: 1. Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protests? Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: 1. Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. 2. Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:34:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8326ab8f-6f6d-4868-0fd3-9a28f508abd0@sero.name> On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. > Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the important) distinction. I don't know how similar they look on the surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with different names even in English. > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Once again, I object. Who says so? > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be > performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to > the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 07:20:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828142031.GA10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin : presented in an earlier message. : The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis. As in: : R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the : application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. : Would you please explain how and/or why? This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an observer. See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur, not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half of the label on the "almond milk". But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat? Tangent: : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk... WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats and the milk were cooked together. As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar. After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to wait to eat. The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's. (My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?) Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs. But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked them together? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:06:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (MorrisIsaacson via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog Message-ID: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) Thank you, Moshe Isaacson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:20:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the : sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk : that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that : milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us : that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would : have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would : have been protected from those other ingredients... This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out something else... According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is that of kosher species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of the milking. Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched by a Yisrael. Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly, neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy more than chazal's taqanah. For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's ruling exempting powdered milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent > adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still > applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched > by a Yisrael. > > Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 10:52:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa : lechumra. Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines right above your comment. (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about without the gezeira. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:52:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828155218.GC10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote: : Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated : with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't resplond when you asked on another forum.) Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid. The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and Tzefaniah 2:14. But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol to it. The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll", because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French. Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would share that metaphor. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. > > : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash > : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa > : lechumra. > Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal > visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing > "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. > So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines > right above your comment. He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah. And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5fe6203e-5ca3-2df7-9dc4-ab23193ca9e8@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF > held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus > inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping kashrus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:18:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:18:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have : done. I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:50:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7a7271fd-d51c-6efc-2eb8-8d88dc02bf52@sero.name> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose > : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need > : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have > : done. > > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further supervision is needed. I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care about reshus. What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his employees or guests. The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours from the bottle into his cup. And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. So what makes it CY? This can be further split into two scenarios: (1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision. It was CY lim'hadrin from the moment of milking until this nochri bought it. But now it isn't. (2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at one point it was already in reshus yisroel. In other words, there was more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from the bottle. Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus nochri? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 15:07:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? In-Reply-To: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> References: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170828220709.GH31841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the : bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') : is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, : an eclipse is not included in this list... The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of an eclipse is for others, not Jews. BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah? Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said? I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im (mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see Creation in it but can't. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 13:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828202847.GG31841@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature : calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow : and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as : Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. ... : But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar : and non-Tzon, this non-animal? : Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence : my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You went over my head. I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73. So what are you asking? ... : Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, : the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even : if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur : will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and CAN be chal on it. As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type fatty deposits? Where this question is coming from: My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of a chayah is permissible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 17:25:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:25:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances Message-ID: Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis. He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined by the names we use to identify things. But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as far as I can tell, has not been addressed. Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the facts of the Halacha. I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by. We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino, is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste? Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop - stop trying to force the round peg. I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined. = = = = = Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked with milk from the Pesikta he quotes. Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, it must still be Halachically coherent. Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats. - - - - - Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained why there is no MA to cook these with dairy. He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different names even in English. Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are. Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi. Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim, take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is explaining. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:10:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:10:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? Message-ID: The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The answer is Yes and also No There is an Issur to eat Neveila but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat - RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2 Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah. Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by the Gemara, Chullin 58a. A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar, a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo. After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before being incubated] from unfertilised eggs. Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif]. Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it. What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision must be made, which is ZVZGo. BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa. Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher chickens when they hatch. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 16:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh Message-ID: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds." Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 19:54:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which conclusions may be drawn. > Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when > HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until > they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection > and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was permitted to them. But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 05:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it (and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead) However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers. They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish. Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container with CS. How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)? (they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 08:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ab46d6f-e25f-3389-5dea-28aabefa26c1@sero.name> On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they > are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were > growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the > eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] Then why not say the same of the hen's meat? It too was mostly grown before it became a tereifah! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 12:52:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh In-Reply-To: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> References: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170829195223.GA27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, : assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? : Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as : Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in : Hebrew. TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error tragic; I wonder if it's common. I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers: Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds... until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud. Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad. The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados". The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 13:32:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170829203231.GB27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold : that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the : status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan : according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their : keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the : absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all : kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his : descendants! Not to mention all benei Racheil. Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before we were true Benei Yisrael. Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a "nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah. Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other. Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as an issur chamur. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 30 12:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:48:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments Message-ID: A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933: As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . (Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues) We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address. It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure way of life that would bring us to God's light. The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps. Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split. A couple of notes: 1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause. 2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other personal sin), he had this in mind. 3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely within the Clal doing the sin. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 06:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 07:44:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it > sounds like "original sin." YL And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:35:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170831233516.GB22179@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me :> it sounds like "original sin." YL : : Did you think only Xians beleived : in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our : view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the : guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"... The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach. Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos, all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin. Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 12:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America Message-ID: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus see there for more background: On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land... On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein... REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US. Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6: Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them, they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness, not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished, as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia. Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain, without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with our very eyes ... This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel] was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150 years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather, that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times. (Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America being a "medinah shel chessed.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:43:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have several comments. The OU writes: > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > the home for Shabbos. Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs of the home." In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting the lights is part of that! The OU continues: > The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. > Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to > sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama), > women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to > me it sounds like "original sin." I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I think that's all the Tur is saying. It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive from the same event. Finally, the OU writes: > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > the wicks will easily catch fire. It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be *more* difficult to light later on. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 18:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:57:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh Message-ID: NEVEILAH Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the prohibition to eat Neveilah It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2 However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah. I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by Halacha so why is it Assur to eat it? MARIS AYIN The following are universally accepted 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha and even Minhag 2] AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta] 3] AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA? I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal. and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats, even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA. The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah - Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not. Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has no direct Halachic component to it Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a reflection of Halacha. Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden. Please provide some sources. As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is also predicated upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim. As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish? ISSUR BBCh I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor - only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook. The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out - the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:06:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:06:02 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a little bit will do] That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However, for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen. The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:00:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb'al peh Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression > that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may > disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no > one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within > the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from > Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions > made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that > seem problematic to our minds." > > Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, > assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not > so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies > as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent > in Hebrew. I could respond in any of several ways. Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial. I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash, until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that Nach is also included.) Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural sources, and with hardly any logical arguments. Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin: What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his stereotypes about mishnayos.) This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion, and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our practice is XYZ. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 22:23:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? Ben On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system > of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to > see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or > murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow > one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and > speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 06:49:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org>, <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. Kvct Joel rich > On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? > > Ben > >> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system >> of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to >> see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or >> murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow >> one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and >> speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkampgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:45:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based ideology. But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses. I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate, interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need. So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:58:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ > Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas > haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's > because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something. Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive, and they recognized this. The implications for today are self-evident. As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the Zionists actively fought against religious practice. -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:11:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote: : That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I : don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:19:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:19:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict so many murderers. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:27:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901152729.GI31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so : that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power : and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, : false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why : we continue to remember Amalek. R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8) RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can can pass as soon as we stop being a threat. Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as chinam. So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah. This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on what they did, and not let it Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't, why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred we feel once we realize they hate us back. The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how to address sin'as chinam. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:27:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only > superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any > other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't > mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it > became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly > damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:08:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:08:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias" and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell "Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote: : As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign : names? As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations. The use of : aleph and ayin always makes things interesting. The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE 126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them. It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.) My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud. There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef; patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud. On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued: :> The very point I was trying to make is that yes, : I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an : English word into Hebrew. : If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1 : spelling. Especially for more complicated names. As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)... There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others. I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself. The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide English sounds among the established transliterations. "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the "j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and an English "ch". The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or "Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's where I could see debate. Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only said by some who know her? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:59:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4318c19f-0790-10f1-6bab-106d72e8dd9b@sero.name> On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/ thing for the "j". The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi teshuvot discuss it. IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it was spelt gimel yud. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:34:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:34:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The role of gematria, and remez in general In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <488600f7-ef1c-3adb-b551-f3c00f739ff9@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170901163421.GC28962@aishdas.org> >From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria itself reached Avodah topicality. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim: > True. But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li > pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see > how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that. > R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other > opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not > one of them methods used to darshan Torah. And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:" : Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves : use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah... What is the role of Remez? We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh -- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.) Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat in the pasuq. And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod". But remez? What's it for? It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f004425-548e-142a-90de-48c5e91769b8@sero.name> On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. [Email #2] On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:24:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901172407.GB14196@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means : they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which would either mean: 1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency. Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't try to fix what you can? 2- They felt they were insufficient in skill. Or a third or fourth possibility. I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death. Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment. And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9, the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death. He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then. R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin" which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time getting permission to execute someone than they did. But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi wrong. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:52:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote: > > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > > the home for Shabbos. > >Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. >The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was >"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a >level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why >this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, >because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs >of the home." > >In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting >the lights is part of that! Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) >Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be >in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do >something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I >think that's all the Tur is saying. You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness, >Finally, the OU writes: > > > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > > the wicks will easily catch fire. > >It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully >understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain >piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and >difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a >charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. >In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be >counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be >*more* difficult to light later on. Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:32:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:32:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412cee4b-73a8-f3ae-bd8f-d8051cb68646@sero.name> On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually > oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:03:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, from Jewish breakaway groups). Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). Another (lesser known one): the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha. (IIRC, the S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.) My question is this: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and something comparable in secular life. Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from some other group/idealogy? (E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of it's Nazi association. But I'm looking for a better and more relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't a common design anyway)). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:07:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we : are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some : sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and : something comparable in secular life. Something so direct, it's not even an analogy. Jewish: Yichud. Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the opposite gender. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:17:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> >The following are universally accepted >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all >Halacha and even Minhag Is this the case? According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm , the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos). He also mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613. (As they each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) ) So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? (In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or so. So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did the general opinion change? Or did it?) -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 02:39:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:39:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath Message-ID: Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel during their Shabbath? Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, text (SMS) or WhatsApp? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 12:09:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality.? So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 03:38:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 06:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . I wrote: > In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then > lighting the lights is part of that! and R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of > homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? > ... > Given that roles today are much different than they were in > the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles > should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I > am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive. I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For example, if non-family are present, some might consider this non-tzniyus. But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other. > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which > are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights > with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is > no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem > with Shabbos neiros? As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that does not apply to Chanukah. My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 04:08:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: . R' Sholom Simon asked: > Can anybody think of a secular (ideally, American) law or > common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish > ourselves from some other group/idealogy? R' Micha Berger's response of yichud is a great example of where secular society has grasped the importance of gezeros which help protect us from ourselves. Similarly, secular society understands the concept of Mar'is Ayin and Chashad, and they express this in the term "Appearance of impropriety". (There's even a short Wikipedia page with that title.) But I don't think either of these is what RSS was asking for. He wants examples where the purpose is specifically: > in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, > from Jewish breakaway groups). > > Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos > (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). The answer that first came to my mind is that the original American colonists adopted various practices to distinguish themselves from their European origins. I'm sure there were others, but the main one that comes to my mind is the spelling differences between British and American English. For example, the Wikipedia article "Comparison of American and British English" says: "One particular contribution towards formalizing these differences came from Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionary (published 1828) with the intention of showing that people in the United States spoke a different dialect from Britain, much like a regional accent." Akiva Miller PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, where we are uneqivocally supposed to do it one way, but the other way is grudgingly acceptable after the fact. (Speeding limits are *not* a good example of this. The policeman will probably not stop you for going slightly over the limit, but he certainly could. That would be a Chetzi Shiur at most - a clear violation, even if not a punishable one.) If anyone has good examples, please start a new thread. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 06:07 PM 9/1/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >Jewish: Yichud. >Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy >about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the >opposite gender. Thanks -- but I'm looking more for something that is intended to separate us (us "regular Americans" -- whatever that is) from a people or nation or ideology that we find distasteful. An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). I'm looking for a law or practice that *separates/distinguishes" (havdil) - your example is more like a "fence." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest example I can think of is not secular. Mennonite (including Amish) men shave their moustaches to express their rejection of all things military, because when their customs were formed soldiers wore moustaches. > PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that > is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, There's the principle "de mimimis non curat lex", but that's more like chatzi shiur, which civil law considers mutar lechatchila. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:15:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <657b8edc-97f8-5fa2-45c9-7efe94200b60@sero.name> On 02/09/17 05:39, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel > during their Shabbath? > > Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, > text (SMS) or WhatsApp? If you know they won't break shabbos to read it, or at least you don't know they will break shabbos to read it, then I don't see a problem. "Ee ata metzuveh al shevisas keilim". It's not shabbos for you; it is shabbos for the remote instrument that you are manipulating, but that is not a problem. The same would apply to operating a waldo that's in a place where it's shabbos; it's shevisas keilim, which BH says is not a thing. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:28:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: <12a7adb9-e48c-7af7-3fb2-7ee96c2a3799@sero.name> On 02/09/17 15:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue > here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a > reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and > Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but > it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand > that we live in this reality. But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:51:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:51:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (1:4) writes: "When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel ... They would come to the Beis Din at the entrance to the Azara. If they knew [the din] they would tell them, if not everyone went into the Beis Din and asked. ... If the matter was not clear to the Beis Din they would discuss the issue until all agreed or they they would take a vote and follow the majority and tell the petitioners this is the halacha" The Rambam is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 88 which states the following: "At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Beis Din Hagadol. The Beis Din Hagadol was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah). If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide. After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai)." There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the Tannaim, the Gemara in fact related that they left their place in the Lishkas ha'Gazis 40 years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. If so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol in existence? 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:23:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: , <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: From: Sholom Simon Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:17 PM > The following are universally accepted > 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha > and even Minhag > Is this the case? ... > So... what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone > accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? As in many things, the Rambam seems not to have been noticed. This is distressing, because the Rambam tries to present things according to halokho, not according to medrash. As he says in his introduction to the Tenth Pereq of Sanhedrin in Perush haMishnayot, medrash is almost never to be taken literally, but rather comes to teach us things (but says that most Jews don't understand that). For halakhic purposes, the Rambam explains in Hil. M'lakhim 9:1, that Adam haRishon observed 6 things that he was commanded. One was added after the Mabbul, so yielding 7 mitzvos that Noah and his descendents were commanded to observe. Avraham Avinu was also commanded concerning Milah, and he took upon himself the obligation to daven Shacharit. Yitzchak added another two, and Ya'aqov another two. When rabbis say that Avraham observed all 613 Mitvot, it is obviously not meant literally: many, many of the 613 only came into force after King Shlomo built the BhM. Before that, there were a whole set of other mitzvot (such as that the Kohanim and only the Kohanim wereto take apart and assemble the Mishkan, and that the L'viyim and only the L'viyim were to carry the parts of the Mishkan). These were commandments from HQBH, but not part of the set of 613. When the BhM was built, those mitzvot disappeared and new mitzvot, which are part of the 613 count, came into effect. So before that no one "observed" the 613. And some of the 613 are only applicable to Kohanim, and some only to L'viyim, and some only to Yisra'elim, so there was no person ever who observed or could observe all 613 mitzvot. So when we say nowadays that Jews are commanded to observe 613 mitzvot it does not mean that any person is commanded to observe all 613; it means that there exist 613 mitzvot. Every Jew is commanded to learn all 613, however. So it is possible that the Avot learned all 613. But most of them were not technically mitzvot then, because they were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and before that no one was commanded to do them. So what does the Torah mean when it says that Avraham observed "mishmarti, mitzvotai,chuqqotai v'torotai" (sic, not "toratei) in Chapter 26? The same thing that it means in 18:19 "for I know him, that he will command his children and his house after him to obeserve the way of the Lord." There is no question that Avraham Avinu was ALSO commanded to observe what Chazal include in the term "Derekh Eretz" and the Rambam explicates in Hil. De'ot Pereq 6, which included such basic things as proper behavior and middot (and one of the main goals of the Aishdas organization, and nowadays is called "mussar"). Chazal say that all of those things have to come before Torah, i.e. before learning rest of the Torah. And, as Micha the founder of Aishdas can tell you better than anyone, there are so many, many things that one has to learn and focus on to observe these most basic of the commandments. So Avraham would have had his hands full teaching people those. Did he also learn all the mitzvot that would be given later? He was a novi, and so perhaps could, but one cannot say that he "observed" them in the literal sense, because how could one "observe" a law that had not yet been instituted and was not even applicable? Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 17:39:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when : American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. : (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their national ethnicity. I think this topic has become non-PC. Nationalism is even a dirty word in some circles; viewed as faschism, or fascism-lite. You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without running afoul of rules about discussing politics? But I hope that at least relating the two topics will provide something to think about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 10:58:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel > and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the > Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din > Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority and passed their 18 gezeros. The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the period of the zugos. Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 12:44:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:44:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > >> 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel >> and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the >> Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din >> Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. >> > > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority > and passed their 18 gezeros. That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. > The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. > Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the > period of the zugos. Yes that is exactly the question. Why didn't they resolve all of the Machlokes in the Mishnayos. > Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the > other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. Wouldn't that violate the issur of lo tasuguru mipnei ish? > > > -- > Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, > zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 18:14:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7333f45e-37cb-8ad0-ca8f-bffbb68048f8@gmail.com> Sun, 3 Sep 2017 Marty Bluke asked: > ...The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the > Tannaim... > so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence > there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students > had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol > in existence? > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and > Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? > Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for > most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. By '''in existence,'' the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The English-language Jewish history books that have been published over the past few decades follow this model. I have also done so in ''The Dynamics of Dispute,'' (Judaica Press) Chapter 10, ''The Control and Proliferation of Machlokess, Keeping the Torah One.'' Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 01:59:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:59:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:01:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> On 05/09/17 04:59, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both > David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never > attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females must be killed as well. Your question of how Agag's descendants, conceived the night before he was killed, managed to become so numerous so quickly applies here too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:17:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? Message-ID: According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. However, others disagree. Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/yblaj8cu If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:49:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:49:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it > into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? > Greek changed a lot over the centuries. I'm not sure if it even existed as a language at the time of Joshua, and the Greek alphabet was certainly much later. If Greek was the one of the languages the Torah was translated into then it would probably have been unrecognizable in the Hellenistic period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 09:17:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> On 05/09/17 11:17, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate > it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? 1. Ptolemy, not Alexander. 2. 72 sages, not 70. 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) exist today? 4. Even if the writing did still exist, would whatever passed for Greek in 1271 BCE have been intelligible in 271 BCE? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:36:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:36:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/5/2017 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. > However, others disagree. ... > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 > languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages > to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek > translation? Well, for one thing, it was Ptolemy, rather than Alexander. But for another, maybe it wasn't necessary. Perhaps if they'd simply asked for the authoritative Greek translation, they'd have gotten it, and any number of distortions of the Torah caused by the Septuagint wouldn't have happened. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:20:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> References: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170905182040.GB2253@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:17:10PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the : writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure : to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) : exist today? Rishonim on Yehoshua also argue how many such monuments there were. For example Rashi (at least as explained in Gur Aryeih) has three copies: one in the Yaedrin, one on the mizbeiach on Har Eivel (which is named in Devarim) and one at Gilgal. AND there is a machloqes tanna'im (Sotah 35b) about how they were written. But I think both shitos hold they were engraced. R' Shimon says that the stones were plastered, and then the words were engraved into the plaster. R' Yehudah held the stones were engraved, and then plastered on top of them. R' Yehudah's position sounds like it's describing more permanent writing, but how would you get to see it? You would not only need to peel off the plaster, the plaster could well get into the engraved letters. To address the original question: Ezra haSofer used majority to produce the mesoretic text, leaving us with a sefer that didn't match any of the copies found. Why didn't he check the Hebrew copy/ies from the monunemnt(s)? Wouldn't a text engraved by people who met MRAH be more authoritative than any of them? (All this assuming, as is the post I'm replying to, that they contained the whole Torah. That is the shitah we're trying to understand, no?) So it would seem to me that just as we have no idea how to find this monument / these monuments, even if the writing is still legible, they were already unavailable in Ezra's day. Unsurprising, given how much more pragmatic and used knowledge was lost. And even if they did know where to find it, either the writing wore off the plaster, or perhaps the plaster was too embedded after all those centuries to be picked off to read the stone. Regardless of the shift in Greek, the stones weren't even usable when the target was the original Hebrew. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170905184626.GC2253@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:17:58PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >The following are universally accepted : >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all : >Halacha and even Minhag : : Is this the case? In a footnote to one of his father-in-law's maamarim, RMMS (the LR), writes that this is meant that they did so "beruchnius, velo begashmius": Some mitzvos they "only" fulfilled the point of the mitzvah without physically doing the mitzvah. E.g. tefillin, with its mention of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. Others, they did perform the mitzvah physically, but still they only did so to accomplish the ruchnius -- it was only incidentally physical, and only sometimes in the same form. See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31608&st=&pgnum=137 For example (not given there), the Zohar links Yaaqov's spotted sticks and changing the coats of sheep to the mitzvah of tefillin. But the sticks didn't become qadosh, because uplifting and redeeming the gashmi wasn't part of the plan. There is more in Liqutei Sichos on Lekh Lekha www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/68627/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Lech-Lecha.htm Given RMMS's relationship to shitas Rashi, and our stereotype that chassidus tends to take maximalist positions, I thought this position would be somewhat interesting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 13:30:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:30:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> Message-ID: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females > must be killed as well. How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what the mitzvah and the dinim were? Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently no one informed him. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 20:43:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 05/09/17 16:30, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females >> must be killed as well. > > How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what > the mitzvah and the dinim were? They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 07:45:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:43:20PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe : taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of : "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in : front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never : knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so : angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. BB 21b. I think he concluded said rebbe (Yoav) did it as intentional ziyuf, not an error. R Mordechai Breuer concludes that the semichut (i.e. the "X of Y" form of the word for X) for "zakhar" could follow a variant conjugation and come out "zekher". And while it's hard to picture confusing "z'khar" and "zeikher", "zekher" and "zeikher" is much easier. The "zekher" vs "zeikher" debate over what the Gra had for Parashas Zakhor was over which means the Gra's intent was to tell us the word means "reminder / memorial" rather than "memory". The mesorah is "zeikher". But if zekher could mean both "males of" and "memory of", the mistake is VERY easy. (Not that RMB would worry about the possibility of the Gra disagreeing with the mesoretic niqud.) But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? It's strange. In our culture, it would be the "hot topic" of study for the weeks leading into the war... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 11:48:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > error. No. Why would he do that? The Rishonim discuss whether the rebbe himself didn't know the correct pronunciation, or whether he knew it and therefore taught it corrrectly, but didn't pay enough attention to how each boy was pronouncing it, so never noticed that young Yoav had misheard him and was reading "z'char". > But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 15:51:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an : >error. : No. Why would he do that? A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't get clarification /before/ the war? And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most of the animals? Actually, if you figure the remaining animals were for qorbanos, he was planning on all them being killed. A random reenactment of Yericho? Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 19:12:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> On 06/09/17 18:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > : >error. > > : No. Why would he do that? > > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. I don't understand why you keep bringing David up. What does he have to do with this story? The story is about Yoav, not David. And I repeat my question, why would Yoav's rebbe intentionally corrupt the pasuk? Why would Yoav even suspect him of it? > :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? > > : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. So how does that make Yoav a gadol? > And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? Why would it even occur to him that Yoav had such a misunderstanding? > And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most > of the animals? Do you mean Shaul? Perhaps Yoav didn't know the details of what had happened all those years ago. In fact how many people ever knew about Shmuel's rebuke of Shaul? It may have been secret by the king's order, and not spoken about, so Yoav may never even have heard of it. > Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when > it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Again, Yoav thought he had it right. He didn't even know that there was anything he needed to ask. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 00:02:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi@opengemara.org via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3FF2B345-8199-48FC-A3BD-6A89FC2540F9@opengemara.org> On September 6, 2017 3:51pm PDT, Micha Berger wrote: ... > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. .. >: Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? The Gemara (Bava Basra 21b) says that the issue was "???? ???? ????? ?' ???? [arur oseh melekhes H' remiyah -mb]" -- that the teacher should be more attentive (also, it fits into the Sugya there -- that a teacher who is medayek is better than one who's fast). Also, there's a machlokes in Sanhedrin if Yoav was a good person who made mistakes or if he was evil but found Dovid Hamelech to strong. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 09:45:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:45:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: R' Martin Bluke asked: > 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says > hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash > states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night > and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. > > However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought > Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if > Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David > and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to > wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out Amalek. First the data: * The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters. * The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh * As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's Pelishti stronghold. * Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a problem. So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul. Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans, but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert. So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them, because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites, Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself. Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command. Ad kaan. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 11:15:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Practices of the Tochacha" Message-ID: Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well written and very interesting. http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 12:54:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170907195348.KNNX30763.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: >: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when >: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. >: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). > >Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have >recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken >to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their >national ethnicity. . . . > >You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without >running afoul of rules about discussing politics? Perhaps. Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable with respect to Americans and the American Revolution! Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 14:24:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170907212448.GC15354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? : http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation: All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 15:38:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170907223856.GD15354@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" : d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its : mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? : : Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, : but we don't hold like him. Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4. It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20. ... : We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from : Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus : seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's : significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, : suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later (you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted the gezeira. Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely. : So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev, not so much. I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo" was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo" rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get that conclusion from "sevasheil". And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim lemiqra. But it crashed down. Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 23:55:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> Message-ID: Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks with him the rest of life. Ben On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there > was anything he needed to ask. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 11:55:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 13:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:06:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote: : I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw : it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather : than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," : just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. R Mordechai Breuer On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote: : How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him : what the mitzvah and the dinim were? : Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous : mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know : that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently : no one informed him. And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav was strongly deferential to David. Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the questions as to why. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 14:02:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything > about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a > unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav > was strongly deferential to David. I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. Suppose you're a caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which includes liver. You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, and I agree. You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 9 19:13:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur Message-ID: RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh [but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein Issur Chal Al Issur. So how is it that RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 03:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: > By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' > Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources > that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol > could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and > Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam says? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:18:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to function normally. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:43:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:43:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the > time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to > function normally. And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way. The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin was not functioning normally. [Email #2. -micha] One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 07:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91da4a07-6dcd-bc04-b9e0-38326532931d@sero.name> On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod to both sides. (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 10:02:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : While there may have : been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, : why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam : says? Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin, when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin. (Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.) So, what happened? My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed resolution by higher courts. IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 15:32:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45eac523-5fc8-1a2c-0c9a-256d54c2e054@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700), when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704, while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate, and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards. There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows Beis Hillel. Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become the standard one. All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 20:42:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> Message-ID: <6c5042b2-7703-92b5-e001-b2e5bc111010@zahav.net.il> In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these issues when instructing the soldiers? Ben On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 01:20:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the > one on smicha What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. [Email #2] On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different > conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed > resolution by higher courts. > > IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. > > To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of > valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 06:23:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha" > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. No, they weren't. BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they started in the very last years before it, when things were far from normal functioning. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170911151131.GF24527@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? : Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis : Sheini. But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis. I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a "veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule. The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer. Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq, for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al devarav, for even these greats weren't. So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the best answer to your question. And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to the late amoraim? Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why (leshitas haRambam) the question was still around? : On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. :> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of :> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? : The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white : approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim : "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything : in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying : that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini. (Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's just projecting.) There is a difference between 1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah saying it means the last two are in reversed order; and 2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this idea would be kosher. The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin. And yet, multiple norms would co-exist. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the destruction of Bayit Sheni. Lisa On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis > Sheini. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 07:13:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories Message-ID: <20170911141302.GB24527@aishdas.org> Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav in a different direction. I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the "q" in "Amaleiq".) : I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported : wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher : Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where : we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history. : Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint : in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious : revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of : anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where : the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in : order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal : add a story that isn't needed. : Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or : pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some : of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising, : but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read : historically, I wonder. I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.) Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened" the criteria for such categorization? If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories that defy how the world works. (And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who accept miracles.) In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures. Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid. IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh and av deis din derelict in his duty? The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because they're only ahistoric. I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from within the midrashic-story system. So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..." While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise" far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:54:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty. Rabbi Akiva lived at the > time of the Bar Kochva revolt. R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later. The > vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the > destruction of Bayit Sheni. While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 17:20:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, > Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was > Nasi in Yavneh)" And how many of those feature in any machlokos? Hillel & Shammai had only three, beside the long-running one on smicha. > These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel & Shammai do. Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to dispute? > Hillel and Shammai were certainly > well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their > students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo ra'u". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 18:19:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:19:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 07:02:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? Message-ID: <1505224922640.65779@stevens.edu> Please see the video at http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb produced by the Harabonim of Queens YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 20:16:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:16:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? In-Reply-To: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe > the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were > gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". > Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of > machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the > teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the > lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on! As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one). Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF. * HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim, 1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130 concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora. (All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 08:49:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? Message-ID: <1505317742192.42683@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40) writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until thirteen and a half minutes after sunset. The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 11:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (hankman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:11:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Message-ID: R. Zvi Lampel wrote: ?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help?? CM responds: Yup, I imagine that would be the concordance in his head! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 06:28:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= Message-ID: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 08:54:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:54:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170914155423.GD26813@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av : even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but... Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 09:44:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach In-Reply-To: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> References: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170914164428.GA4289@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is : applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, : might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?.. I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981) count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei. So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod. While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such "tolados". : Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own : law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven? I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of authority is granted. There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of a Noachide court under dinim: The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society. This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10) and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid (Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim 10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim" includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law needs to look like. But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the other 6. This is shitas haRambam (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land. See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 11:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> Message-ID: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min : ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger : (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin was a meat thing in particular. But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the brain. (* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're the consensus, by sheer number.) If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration. It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort to obtain the treif milk. R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:00:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> References: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4636649d-ed8e-bc04-6e80-c299a962507c@sero.name> On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash > et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case > to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. > Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held > like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" > understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, > not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the > brain. You have the PC and CS reversed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1505420943267.43919@stevens.edu> Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170914201537.GB11862@aishdas.org> First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to R Akiva Miller's second post first. On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote: : As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that : takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real : halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the : lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, : but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that : does not apply to Chanukah. I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT) is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function of neis Shabbos. IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation" as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her feel less that she is shouldering the list alone. Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote: : Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. : The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was : "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a : level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why : this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, : because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs : of the home." Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..." But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah kavsah neiro shel olam connection.) The MB too... So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU cites, "only" the nesei keilim. : In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting : the lights is part of that! Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where women can consistently be homemakers..." The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way. BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't know what to make of that. Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular social state? This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book "Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law" https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing, and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes. One paragraph: Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways. The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point: according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations in a range of mitzvot! Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't know): Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal family unit. RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the thesis: Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical, and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single sex. He did not do so. ... Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family, we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids. So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed social structure. RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers, among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular kinds of social structure over others. ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with a husband and wife at the core. ... Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for, community units that comprise family units which comprise individual units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis. A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is so much to say about it. Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield: Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are -- and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 14:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170914210406.GB10180@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote: : There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): : 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the : Tannaim... According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im. According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion) it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over a dechuyah rule). So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and both talmuds. : 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and : Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? To sum up: 1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah. : Why did they let Machlokes fester? ... 2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted, or cannot be taken at face value. a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from the lishkas hagazis. Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post: b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should. And I suggested: c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that distinguishes between them. And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote: : > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won : > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority : > and passed their 18 gezeros. : That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed : group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It : sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either mean - number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5) - number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT sham) So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that would explain why they too got counted. But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 09:28:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:28:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> >From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss : Question: If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition. Answer: He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like an average person, and certainly not Maaser. If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur cholim, miqvah, shuls... I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of the rest of the community. Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. (I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to help, I would appreciate it.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 11:15:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? --------------------- From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 12:22:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170915192219.GD11421@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - : cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools (and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave them some guidelines for defining what that is. But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the complexity of their definition. And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/ poseiq would tell you to compute your share? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 17 07:08:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is the Customer Always Right? Message-ID: <95.E3.03036.1028EB95@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 15:19:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:19:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha > B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to > have a minyan? I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, as compared to wwithout a minyan. I thought that we say it Motzaei Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few days are left and we fear running out of time. Both reasons are even more relevant on Motzaei Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 21:39:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a25b83f-173e-6448-5511-011515a4e304@sero.name> On 18/09/17 18:19, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, > as compared to wwithout a minyan. Without a minyan one can't say the kaddish. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 01:56:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tuitiion Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: RMB wrote: > Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: > Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, > is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW > described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the > differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other > urgent causes? > I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one > may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if > promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are > currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: It is meritorious to support Torah scholars, and you may dedicate a portion of your [maaser kesafim] funds even to support one's own son studying Torah. You may likewise use a portion of these funds to pay for the your adult children's yeshiva gedola, midrasha and college tuition, but you should not draw on these funds for paying tuition while in elementary or high school. [1] However, someone lives a modest lifestyle and still cannot otherwise make ends meet, may draw on these funds even to pay for a portion of his minor children's Jewish day school tuition. [2] Someone who benefits from a scholarship at an institution of Jewish education should prioritize that institution when giving charity, over other institutions. [3] 1: Chatam Sofer YD 249 2: Igrot Moshe YD2 ?113, but Aruch haShulchan YD 249:7 disagrees 3: Oral ruling by Rav Hershel Schachter It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka. I once sent my kids to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we are discussing, since it is a poor community). -- Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 11:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral Message-ID: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> An Aish article notes: >The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >within them. There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first appear in Jewish thought?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 13:33:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom Message-ID: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> The most commonly cited reason that we say "oseh hashalom" rather than "oseh shalom" in kaddish during the 10 days, is that the gematria of hashalom is equivalent to the gematria of Safriel, the malach that "writes" us into the Book. (I just recently read somewhere else: "Hagahos Mordechai [Miseches Rosh Hashanah 720 he states as follows: Safiriel is the Gematria of Oseh and Oseh is the Gematria of Hashalom. Alternatively this hints to the kindness of Hashem that swerves the judgment to merit in a case that the sins and merits are equal, and the verse states "Maaseh Hatzedaka Shalom"." (I don't understand this second reason: the "sholom" in that last phrase doesn't have a "hey") I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their other reasons I am missing?) KvCT! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their > other reasons I am missing?) Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter counts. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:40:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <6d0c6039-0428-0174-88ec-0724ad47e1a5@sero.name> On 19/09/17 14:48, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >> forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >> Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >> imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >> within them. I assume this is in the context of a discussion of the way people in ancient times used to see time as cyclical rather than as progressing, as we moderns see it. > I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. > > Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first > appear in Jewish thought?) The idea that specific days have fixed properties that repeat every time they come around is found everywhere in Chazal. They took it completely for granted, and of course it fits into the cyclical way the ancients saw all of time. But it's clear from the Torah that they *didn't* see time as cyclical. So the author of this article uses the spiral to explain how they did see it. But it's impossible to discuss this entire subject without the insight that there are different ways to see time, and without the two models -- cyclical and progressive -- to contrast, and to propose syntheses as this author does. Chazal did not have the historical perspective to be aware of this whole dichotomy. I suspect they were unaware that the nochrim of their era didn't see time as they did, and that the nochrim were just as unaware that Jews didn't see time as *they* did. Only looking back from 2000 years later is this difference apparent, and we can discuss how the Torah's progressive view of history can be reconciled with dates repeating themselves, by using the spiral analogy. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 08:45:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170925154550.GC23052@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important : >as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, : >are their other reasons I am missing?) : Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the : first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter : counts. At least both the Chassidei Ashkenaz and the Tur held it was. There is no evidence of this line of thought any closer to the actual start of Nusach Ashkenaz. And a number of the Tur's word counts are dependent on flavor of Nusach Ashkenaz. Could well be that the significance is itself part of a bigger machloqes. They could also be taken as post-facto kavvanos, a way keep in mind a pasuq that colors what we mean by the baqashah, rather than causitive. It is interesting to me that the violation of word count gematrios in Nusach Ashkenaz is largely among Chassidim, who we culturally associate as the community most likely to deal in such remez. Except perhaps for Chida and Ben Ish Hai influenced Sepharadim, but they didn't have a nusach that made such claims to ask why they would choose to leave it. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 05:38:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:38:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? Message-ID: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, and what HKB"H wants from us: Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot switch its use). GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 09:30:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 25/09/17 08:38, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, > and what HKB?H wants from us: > Rama Y?D 249:13 (my free translation) ? In any event one shouldn?t > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won?t he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz ? so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 10:19:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:19:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: We change "min kol" to "mikol" to make up for the addition of the extra "l'eila".? So that the word count stays the same.? So yes, we see this kind of thing everywhere, including kaddish. Lisa On 9/19/2017 11:33 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria.? Do we see that elsewhere?? (Or, are > their other reasons I am missing?) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- I leave it to the readers to project if people put a name on as a form of bragging (separate question - is it intent or what observer's perceive that counts?) It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the item is not in danger of being switched in use? GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:29:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170925182902.GA16613@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:37PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An Aish article notes: :> The Jewish model of time is a spiral... : There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it : was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. : The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time : (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. : I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. There is no source, but it's a pretty compelling conclusion given Chazal's description of mo'eid, or chayav kol adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo repeating yetzi'as Mitzrayim annually OT1H, and yet OTOH speaking of history as inexorably running from Adam to the messianic era (and beyond). We might be the first generation consciously aware enough of the issue to think about our use of both language that implies circular time and that of linear time to want to make a synthesis "helical time". (True YU alumni would insist there is no helical time. Meaning comes from the tension of the dialectic; there is no syntheis. ) I don't question the value of lomdus, even though it is utilizing patterns in halakhah or halachic dialectic that weren't made explicit. Yes, that creates a change of error, but when the explanation is strong enough, do we reject the whole concept because the Rambam never spoke about gavra vs cheftza on topics other than oaths? Think how much hashkafah, or specifically Qabbalah, is drawn from just this kind of finding a theory to explain existing statements. This helical time is typical. So, is it a modern chiddush? That isn't a boolean question... to the extent you find this intepretation muchrach, it's inherent in what came bafore. And the the extent you don't, v.v. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:58:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>> Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't :>> glorify oneself with the charity he gives... :> Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their :> donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item :> donated... ... : It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the : item is not in danger of being switched in use? I am personally bothered when there is so much text on the paroches or cloth on the bimah (term?) that it detracts from the aesthetics. I am also bothered when more space is spent naming the donors than naming and perhaps lauding the person in whose memory the donation was given. That said... I think the consensus is that things have fallen to the point that we have two offsetting values that outweigh this ill: 1- When the choice is between collecting multiples more money with giving out honors vs operating on a shoestring and having to cut corners by only taking more purely motivated donations, the extra tzedaqah given is a mitzvah that outweights the alternative. 2- Even someone who has pure motives and wants to give quietly is living in a society that will respond positively if his donation is made public and influences the community. Peer pressure isn't just for teenagers. I think it's parallel to choosing chalitzah as a first choice. It's clear from the pasuq and the content of the ritual that chalitzah is something that in the ideal no one should be encouraged to choose. But as Abba Shaul noted, we don't live in that ideal world, and what was second-rate has become (centuries later) mandatory practice. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 12:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170925190253.GE16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, : as compared to without a minyan... We make a point of demonstrating communal unity in the middle. "Shalom Aleikhem!" Not speaking halachically, as you aren't obligated to greet 9 men, or even really greet anyone. But still... Aside from Zev's example of getting one more qaddish, which is a nice but incidental advantage, it seems to me that QL itself leans toward being a tzibur thing. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:34:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Ben On 9/19/2017 12:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I thought that we say it Motzaei > Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few > days are left and we fear running out of time. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:09:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:09:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <761520c3-faea-cd38-8ba8-ee24f675b3b7@sero.name> On 25/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > cloth on the bimah (term?) mappah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 03:39:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <046338f8-991f-2216-c55d-6002821d57a1@sero.name> On 26/09/17 01:34, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of > Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a > shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Not everyone does that, in fact some don't even say it on Shabbat, and wait until Shavuot. So zrizin doesn't necessarily override avelut. Also many don't do kidush levana until after 7 days from the molad, by which time we're into the deeper avelut. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 06:45:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170926134541.GB23180@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:34:30AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the : 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? ... I am confused. Isn't the implication simply that all else being equal, do it earlier because zerizin, but aveilus is sufficient for not considering all else equal? Why does zerizus being applicable mean that it is necessarily the most urgent halachic principle coming into play? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 11:54:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Over on Areivim, we were yet again discussing the cRc's position that one should not buy coffee from a full Starbucks store that sells food. Here's my take, cut-n-pasted from what I posted there. ... There is a lot of ham and bacon at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=hot-breakfast and poultry at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=sandwiches-panini-and-wraps The cRc's statement refers to these in particular . It also questions your assumption of the ubiquitous use of soap: Chicago Rabbinical Council Guide to Starbucks Beverages May 2013 / June 2015 ... As said, Starbucks shops serve many kosher and non-kosher items, with the most serious non-kosher item being hot meat sandwiches. The standard daily clean-up at Starbucks includes a hot wash of all utensils and some parts of that washing are done without soap. This clean up process significantly challenges the kosher status of the otherwise kosher products and each product must be judged by a competent halachic authority. The cRc has made available their detailed review and analysis of this topic in the spring 2011 edition of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and that article can be found below. Click here to read this article. The good news is that there are many Starbucks locations that do not serve hot meat sandwiches. These are generally the Starbucks kiosks which can be defined as a Starbucks location, usually found in a mall, retail store, a bus or train station or airport, that does not sell hot sandwiches. The cRc is comfortable recommending any drink made from kosher ingredients (even though some others use ingredients that may not be kosher). This list is accurate at this time for stores in the United States based on two and a half years of extensive research and consultation with the cRc's Av Beth Din, Rav Schwartz, shlit"a.... Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. And that is consistent with the lenient majority. We're trying to understand the cRc's ruling. There is no derabbanan here[, to justify another poster's invocation of safeiq derabbanan]. They're saying that the odds of your cup being washed without soap with a plate that held hot bacon or tereifah chicken is high enough that one needs to avoid taking that risk. But that's real nosein ta'am of an issur de'oraisa. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:56pm +0300 someone wrote to Areivim, on a discussion of the cRc's ruling against : I don't drink coffee at all, so I'm not a frequent Starbucks customer, but : I suspect that a sandwich like : https://www.starbucks.com/menu/food/sandwiches-panini-and-wraps/chicken-blt-salad-sandwich?foodZone=9999 : is probably at least 1/60th chicken or bacon. The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 13:17:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women Message-ID: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the topic of leadership/ordination for women. (I am indebted to some of those here who helped sharpen arguments :-) ). I think I have adequately illustrated that their position is based on wrong/unproven facts, poor logic, fuzzy definitions, strained arguments, and inconsistent application of the rules. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need to have a comprehensive and systematic approach to gender and public/leadership. I am happy to respond to questions, critiques and criticisms. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/sneak-peek-an-analysis-of-the-ban-on-women-rabbis/ Noam Stadlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 12:38:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926193827.GA27624@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:56:59AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: :> I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one :> may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if :> promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are :> currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. : From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: ... : It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as : tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his : minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But : what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka.... Agreed, but I don't see how it's obvious. Say your handyman is a pious guy, and rather than not doing business with people who can't afford his full rate, he charges them less for labor. Also, Rn Handyman isn't so willing to take the full hit on total income. Since this is a nice guy, we can assume that if more of the town were wealthier, his usual rate for someone who can beqoshi stretch the budget would be lower. Is the difference in salary tzedaqah? Does it make a difference if Reb Handyman actuall did this accounting and maybe even announced the resulting differential? Or is a baal melakhah's pay rate money owed, and such cheshbonos should be irrelevent. This imaginary scenario was designed to be both parallel and to my mind a somewhat wild line of reasoning. 1- Once you say that any tuition paid beyond the cost for your child is indeed tzedaqah, one needs a pesaq about how to apportion group costs to each individual student. The cost of the class divided by students, then the cost of school administation divided by the student body? Or maybe if a teacher is hired as soon as a class would otherwise grow beyond 25 students, I should be looking at the incremental cost of my child after the need to start the additional class was caused by someone else? And then -- could it depend on if I registered late, or before the number of classes was determined? And don't get me started on who is paying for resource room staff, where there are parallels to the above AND the reality that different kids would be using different amount of the service. So that my kid's 1 hour per week may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to get a math specialist, whereas another student's 5 hours of readin help is with a teacher they needed otherwise. Who pays what? 2- Once you make it tzedaqah, rather than considering tuition as debt, all could be fine-and-well halachically. And so it can come out of maaser kesafim. (All the more so because we aren't even sure maaser kesafim is a din.) And the schools like this, because it frees up maaser money for people who would otherwise need scholarship. But the line you're replying to was arguing that there is a downside for the school as well. As the teshuvah we started from notes -- debt is a higher priority than tzedaqah. You don't pay maaser out of money owed. And so, the school is marketing a din that may mean /less/ money for them than if the halakhah were that the full tuition should be treated as a debt. position for a sch chakhamim don't have to pay city defenses; maybe a good kid who doesn't see the principal should be considered : to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition : may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we : are discussing, since it is a poor community). GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 21:47:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> References: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4d52778a-5fe9-0dae-592c-ff6316a77877@sero.name> On 26/09/17 14:54, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health > department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough > regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. They wash in soapy water first, and then in clear water. The cRc's position is that soapy water, which is hotter than yad soledes bo but cooler than kashering temp, prevents the transmission of treife taam from one keli to another when they are washed together, but it does *not* render the treife keli permanently pagum. The treife keli comes out just as treif as it was, so when it's then put into *clean* hot water together with the kosher keli the treife taam transfers. > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical substance at all, so it's not surprising that even if it permeates the keli's entire structure, which we assume it does, it doesn't add to its mass. This is also why the bracha on coffee is shehakol, not ha'etz, because there is no substance of the coffee bean in the final product; only taam, smell, and colour are transferred in the brewing, all of which are assumed to have zero mass. Which makes the existence of instant coffee a conundrum, and casts doubt on the practise of saying shehakol also on coffee made from instant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Tabory via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom Message-ID: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. Yosef Tabory From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 08:26:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170927152646.GD1177@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote: : Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of : the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel : minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)... Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah. I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian "Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon, they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation -- 10 yemei teshuvah. To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh. : Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, : the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not : wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought : that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh : Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh) had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom" in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify abandoning it. ----- While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef, let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in "Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi yontef nusach for the joke to work. Why are so many Jews overweight? Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we sing: Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein! Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8), apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates! GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:30:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:30:33 +0000 Subject: “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux Message-ID: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> >From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")? A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart" (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13). IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me) GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:29:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:29:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds Message-ID: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense that A gets more credit(schar) than B? My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish, etc.) Thoughts? GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 19:34:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom Message-ID: . Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz. I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. Specifically: Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912 Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928 Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940 (Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.) Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949 Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950 Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960 The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960 Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982 There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this machlokes. However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different, and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America (who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 18:20:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical > substance at all, ... I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical substance? I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* be removed by cleaning. Gmar chasima tova to all, Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:21:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? Message-ID: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Please see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v I personally have always used money for Kapporas was. This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly mistreated before they are used for Kapporas. IIRC a few years ago it was discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water or food and died. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:31:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had to be discarded. After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost everywhere with the kapporos chickens. Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim: it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here. I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko. But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:48:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical >> substance at all, ... > > I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence > that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical > substance? I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a modern person to wrap ones head around. > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must > be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* > be removed by cleaning. If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing left to kasher! All you've done is clean the surface. There was never a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on the surface. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:54:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7096234e-1e3d-84c3-bb8b-dcfebecbb79f@starways.net> On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 10:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170928170022.GC32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence :> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical :> substance? : I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for : a modern person to wrap ones head around. I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT) about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion: : On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got :> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is :> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean :> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the :> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... : If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get : it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I : always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance : absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel : possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we understand an experience intellectually. This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs, etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience. My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer, than on the physics of the objects being utilized. Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance (like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance" (as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the past agreed with. If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked: > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the whole pot is indeed tainted. I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 12:03:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v ... : This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly : mistreated before they are used for Kapporas... That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens, not the minhag. This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag. The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag. In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it? Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori. (It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.) And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and "ve'ein leshanos". Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa") or not been doing kapparos at all. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 11:52:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588ee3662a16491c9404fcc82bfe2e8a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom. Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 28 22:03:26 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them > a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate object such as money. You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. > Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 29 13:15:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the : >Maharil)... : : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather from his own money. (Shelah) : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a meilitz yosher before going into din. I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the pidyon of the person. :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree.... Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag vasiqin"? GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht : Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a : life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it : with an inanimate object such as money. : : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but : the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after : kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or : else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The : Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, : since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. : : : >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- : >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were : doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand : it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. : : -- : Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, : zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all : _______________________________________________ : Avodah mailing list : Avodah at lists.aishdas.org : http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org : GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From zev at sero.name Fri Sep 29 13:33:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > : >Maharil)... > : > : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it > : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... > > Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather > from his own money. (Shelah) As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... > > Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is > inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer > to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a > meilitz yosher before going into din. Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka. Plus, kaporos is not done right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend doing it as much as a few days earlier). > I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have > primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation? > I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the > pidyon of the person. The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. > :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. > > : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means > : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its > : pedigree.... > > Source? It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". > He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously > suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves > pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin > to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition > fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag > vasiqin"? The same thing. Although don't know who gave this heter someone must have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we don't understand it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:05:15 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog Message-ID: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one? From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:14:07 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to another book which I don't own). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Sep 30 13:35:00 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: If I can mix actuality with the idea below: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. Ben On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the > Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after > kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or > else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer > Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since > it's less embarrassing to the recipient. From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:22:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c1fa29c-aa4b-122a-0dce-bfe50d5e5e32@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 > minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of > Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). > > What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to > another book which I don't own). Shulchan aruch OC 649. See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like the Rambam. Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being covered in more red berries than leaves, etc. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 19:18:58 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov Message-ID: . A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group: > The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when > Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is > known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is > a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one > is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in > for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving > lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed > and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good > both physically and spiritually! When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos. My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov? I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos. Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years, I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic - allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running, Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote "Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".) So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Looking forward to your responses. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sat Sep 30 18:03:12 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171001010312.GA17048@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". : > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will : > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give : > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather : > from his own money. (Shelah) : : As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do : kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. : Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos : is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give : tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. : >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is : >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer : >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a : >meilitz yosher before going into din. : : Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama : and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all : of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) As you yourself write, epmashsis added: : The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, : instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can : buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. : >: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : >: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : >: pedigree.... : > : >Source? : : It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a : plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find "vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim. Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless. The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the chain was already broken for a couple of generations. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 21:05:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3040f2fc-ea44-2eaf-3016-6c25f3b8b9c6@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and > sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the > mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only > applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar one may buy the cheaper one. The second opinion is that even if both are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a third more for the better one. This rule is not just for esrog, it's in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b). > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you can)? If > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a > hiddur to buy one? It means neither one. You left out a word. The Mechaber's language is "*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish". One should buy the better one, *if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior one. If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it. But there's certainly no restriction if you want to. The gemara says "Up to a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:25:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If I can mix actuality with the idea below: > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 > > What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with > tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or > honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that > affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in > Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck. There's nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-) Especially on Erev Yom Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah. The scandal is that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah. If they shechted them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared. [Email #2] On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". >:> And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will >:> be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give >:> maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather >:> from his own money. (Shelah) >: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do >: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. >: Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos >: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give >: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person > to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. We clearly have switched topics. There is no other way to read the Rama. The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka. The Rama says that we should not change this minhag. Then he says how it should be done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white. *Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the person. and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam". It's a pidyon just like pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the poor, we buy it back from tzedaka. >:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is >:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer >:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a >:> meilitz yosher before going into din. >: Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama >: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all >: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... > The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor > person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly. The minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them money. On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable. See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned earlier. So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery. See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to the poor. (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.) > (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about > a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes > no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) Where did you get this idea? There's nothing about it in the source we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen. The pasuk from Iyov is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" that we will shecht instead of this "gever". It has nothing to do with doing a mitzvah. Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov. > As you yourself write, epmashsis added: >: The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, >: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can >: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this. Giving it to the poor is a separate minhag. BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries or something, but you think it's good enough for them. This isn't a logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money prevents it. On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy day). >:>: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means >:>: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its >:>: pedigree.... This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an old minhag". But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised what it was. "Vosik" does not mean old. You're confusing it with "`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; strong; distinguished". "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a distinguished scholar". "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee distinguished among the nations". "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the conscientiously pious men of former days." So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn because they can't sleep anyway:-) [Email #3] PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really. https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7 defines it in leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced". So even when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time itself but to the experience gained over that time. The etymology is not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy". It does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, but of experience. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 1 19:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" Message-ID: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> 1) Balaam advocates the destruction of an entire people. He is a hired gun (or mouth) who has exploited his prophetic gift and is willing to help implement a genocide for the right price. This type of individual has separated himself from all people, hence, this position of his is coded in his very name Balaam, "B'li Am," "without a people." 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is called an "aton.? Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of the physical. But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey, therefore his donkey speaks to him -- the inference being that Balaam has descended to an animalistic level, and that is the symbolism of the donkey talking to him. I see it as "chamor" in the sense of "heavy" referring to Abraham, since he carries so much more weight than Balaam. On the other hand, Balaam's donkey is called ?aton,? very similar to the word "etnan" which means a "harlot's pay? ? quitet fascinating since Balaam prostituted himself with the intention of fulfilling Balak's request. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.? Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 2 08:25:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: RMB wrote: > IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than > Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ > that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what > the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions > in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) > believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in > 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. Indeed, I recall, upon dealing with those various shittos while in RIETS, particularly as covered by Rav Charlop in a shiur of his, that Satmar and Rav Kook are a lot closer to each other than to Agudah & Rav Soloveitchik. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 09:14:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:14:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?What_is_the_correct_way_to_pronounce_Hashem?= =?cp1255?q?=92s_name_in_Shmoneh_Esrei_and_other_brachos=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170703161444.GC18193@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Halacha Yomis ... : A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D ... "We have : a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, : that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY : -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf : Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." First, we know from seifer Shoferim that different shevatim had different accents, such that Shevet Ephraim (like Litvaks of a much later date) pronounced as right-dotted shin the same as a sin or samekh. So how can we talk about a single accent even at Har Sinai? I therefore assume RSZE Hy"d was saying that you need to use your mesorah's patach-cholam-qamatz, as he spells out in the rephrasing. And that these vowels are what's misinai. Which is also problematic, as the division of various possible vowel alophones into specific phonemes probably didn't happen until Teverya. This next paragraph may make your eyes glaze over. It justifies the previous one, but feel free to skip it if it bores you and move on to the next point: Which explains why Bavel's nequdos don't line up one-to-one with the ones we use today -- one symbol for segol and patach and one symbol for qamatz qatan and cholam with a different one for. And the prior Israeli system fits Sepharadi pronounciation, fewer symbols showing less differentiation, but it could simply be less precise. The way we still have one symbol for qamatz qatan and qamatz gadol, or sheva na and sheva nach. (Unless you are using a "simanim" or other non-standard printing. Unicode actually supports this differentiation, if you find a font and a text file that distinguishes.) One symbol does not mean one phoneme. But it hints at how the locals viewer the vowels. Like Rashi, who echoes the Babylonian single segol-patach system when he refers to a segol as a patach qatan. (If you are still reading this paragraph, you'd probably enjoy our mesorah email list. Ask me to sign you up!) R Rallis Weisenthal (CC-ed), in his siddur in memory of Qh"Q Bad Homburg pg LXV (on opensiddur.org), lists traditional Ashkneazi cholam sounds, claiming that they're all dipthongs. ("Claiming", because I am not sure he's right on one of them): Poland, Austria-Hungary komatz chirik O^i [t]oy Lithuania, Russia segol chirik Ae^i [p]ay Northern Germany, Holland patach shuruk A^u [h]ow Southern Germany, Switzerland, France, Latvia, England, North America komatz shuruk O^u [g]o I think the Lithuanian cholam was originally more like /oe/ a sound halfway between /o/ and a tzeirei. (And the /e/ of the tzeirei isn't quite the same as a segol.) What he is describing reflects later Polish influence, a compromise position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio could help here. And I think the British cholam actually is rounder than a qamatz, like a long /O/ in English. And like a long /O/, there is a tendency to add a rounding /w/ (eg "blow"), but it's not always there. Maybe a dipthong of qamatz qatan and a /w/, which is shitas haGra. Not entirely different than what RRW writes, but also not quite as implied from his description. Anyway, he has a continuing discussion by R' Y Kramer againt using a /y/ or /i/ sound to round a cholam. Go to the above link. It's too long and two bi-lingual for me to cut-n-paste here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 10:03:51PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. : However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is : called an "aton." : Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) : suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of : the physical. : But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey... Thus the root "aleph-tav", meaning together with (eg "ito bateivah"). The Gra makes this point about riding a chamor being mastery of one's chomer vs being together with one's ason. I bet RAK cites him. He lurks here, but I took the liberty of CC-ing RAK so as to get his attention. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 11:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The Maharal -- preceded the Gra on this point. Here is a paragraph from the new edition of Explorations (anticipated 20th anniversary edition) The denouement of history is in our hands. The Mashiach will be revealed in clouds of glory if we are worthy; if we are unworthy, our redemption will be of a far less exalted nature. If we are deserving, the clouds will be revealed sooner; if not, the redemption will take longer, and the process will be slow and plodding -- but the redemption will surely come. And just as the clouds are an image that is laden with meaning, representing man's ability to recognize and connect to the metaphysical plane, so, too, the image of the Messiah as a poor man riding on his donkey is no mere literary device: According to mystical sources, this metaphor holds the key to the redemption itself: The Zohar[1] explains that the role of Mashiach is to ride on the chamor, to subdue the physical.[2] ________________________________ [1] Zohar Bemidbar 207a ???? ??? ? ?? ??/? ????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?????"?. ?????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??????????, (????? ??) ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????"? ?????????. ?????? ???? ??????, ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? Those of the right are all merged in one called "donkey," and that is the donkey of which it is written, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" [Devarim 22:10]. That is also the donkey which the King Mashiach shall control. (Zohar, Bemidbar 207a) [2] See comments of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael chapter 40. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? - ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ?"? ???????? ???"? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????...??"? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. Can I repeat that second line on list? As for the first line... In general, email lists are failing. And yet, I don't want to move Avodah to a medium that encourages quick and short answers. If Avodah can't remain a place for in-depth discussion, I'll let it fade away. Mail-Jewish, the grand-daddy in the field, is coming out with a digest every two weeks or so. Although it's healthier than Avodah in terms of breadth of contributor pool. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 07:54:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it Message-ID: Recently, someone quoted a friend as saying something about how doing something for the wrong reason could constitute making the Mishna Burah into an Avodah Zara. Or something like that, I don't remember exactly, and I spent almost an hour trying to find the post, so that's why I can't quote it. Anyway, that person was wondering where the idea came from, and I found the following in the current issue of Jewish Action, also available online at https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ > Love of Torah does not always translate into love of > people ? or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk > caustically noted that increased religious observance is not > always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather > sometimes it is for the sake of ?worshipping the Shulchan Aruch.? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 11:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad Message-ID: Mishnah Megillah 4:9 teaches us: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad just like he blesses for the good." That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are talking about two different situations: If one has actually experienced something, then he must bless God for the good *OR* for the bad, whichever applies to the experience. There is no need to be inclusive, to mention that He is responsible for both. But when one speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when he must mention both the good and the bad. Or perhaps he can speak in generalities, but he must be careful not to suggest that God does *only* good things, to the exclusion of painful things: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that He *does* good. The things He does is described mostly in terms of the life He gives us, and the miracles that He does. (It is true that at one point it we thank Him for "tovosecha" - Your good things - but that is secondary, coming after "niflaosecha".) But then we turned to the fourth bracha of Birkas Hamazon, usually referred to as "Hatov v'haMaytiv" - "the One who is good, and does good" - from the central words. And then it continues: "Hu haytiv, hu maytiv, hu yaytiv lanu" - "He has done good, He does do good, and He will do good to us." And it closes with: "He will never deprive us of anything good." Where is the bad? In what way is this bracha not a violation of this mishna in Megilla? I concede that we've left out the Mishna's word "yizacher", but I don't think that is relevant. It appears to go directly against what the Gemara Megilla wrote, "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad." Is there any way to reconcile this gemara with this bracha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 13:44:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/07/17 14:54, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But when one > speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when > he must mention both the good and the bad. No. There is no need to mention all the things He does. Nor is there any need, when thanking Him for the good things He does, to include also the other things He does. What one may not do is declare that He is *to be thanked for* the good things He does, which implies He is *not* to be thanked for the other things he does. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:15:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered Message-ID: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:17:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:17:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 08:00:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170706150007.GD11698@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:17:31PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? : If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at : all minyanim? By whom? In an alternate reality, where I went into kelei qodesh instead of Wall Street programming jobs, there is (would have been?) a movement by now called Mevaqshei Tov veYosher, a/k/a Other-Focused Orthodoxy (OFO). The OFO flagship shul, Yishrei Leiv, hosts AishDas programming, of course, and at this point in alternate time, has a number of ve'adei mussar, shiurim in machashavah and workshops in tefillah. And, in line with OFO ideology, the rule for who can correct the baal qeri'ah is simple. The only people who can do so are (would be): 1- the gabbaim, 2- the rav, and 3- next week's baal qeri'ah . (Everyone else should go to the gabbaim quietly. Even at the expense of an occasional repeated pasuq. But also gabbaim would need to know diqduq and be able to field the simpler questions of which mistakes actually require correction.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 7 15:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:51:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION Message-ID: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> I sent an email to AVODAH where I mistakenly wrote that Rav Rivkas from Rabbeinu HaGra's family did not write Be'er Hagolah seeking to correct their misspelling. I wrote Bay.ur Hagolah. NEITHER is correct. He wrote B' er HaGolah. there is a shva under the Bais. I ws mistakenly thinking of ppl mistakenly saying Biur HaGra instead of Bay.ur Hagra. My mistake but as least I was thinking of the Gra. :) Reb Joel -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:51:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] the desire to be remembered Message-ID: <000001d2f823$a6448d60$f2cda820$@actcom.net.il> I would call this the need for recognition or the desire for kavod. I think it is a yetzer akin to the need for food or the desire for sex, the yetzer hara that is 'tov la'adam' as Bereshit Rabba puts it. Without the appetite for food, we would probably die of malnutrition; without the desire for sexual pleasure we would probably not want to procreate, and without the desire for kavod/recognition, we would probably be sociopaths. Our need for recognition (desire to be remembered, if you prefer) enables everything from toilet training to basic manners to our desire to contribute positively to society. If we did not need the approval of our parents and our peers, we would never get far enough along the path of social interaction to learn the rewarding nature of altruism and doing good for the sake of doing good. The process of socialization makes us human. Without our need for kavod/approval/recognition, it is hard to see how we could ever be educated. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 14:24:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:24:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India Message-ID: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties between Israel and India? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 19:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India In-Reply-To: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> References: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 08/07/17 17:24, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol > worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties > between Israel and India? I don't see why. There were treaties between our ancient kings and foreign rulers, pretty much all of whom served AZ. And of course there's the treaty between Yaacov & Lavan, which was explicitly backed by each party's deity/ies. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 08:24:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION In-Reply-To: <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> References: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59624AA6.4070406@schnurassociates.com> at least I know that there are some people actually reading what I send out, so TY 2 Rabbi Ralbag, shimon, Capt Dan and I think Mendy for responding. as for the rabbi's comment, I am pleased to see/read that he has a good sense of humor. I also learned how to spell email in Hebrew. My announced CORRECTION reminds me of the incident with Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he had a prober for being Rosh Hayeshiva for KOL TORAH. he was giving his shiur and someone corrected him. He stopped, thought about it and then said 'taeeti" figuring he blew his chance for getting the job. Afterwards they told him he was selected as RY and he supposedly said "but I blew it when I made that mistake." Just the opposite they said. We want someone who is able to admit he made a mistake. and with that story, I end this adventure. :) B'yidedus, Joel > Rav Ralbag > July 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM > ?? JOEL: > ???? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. > ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????-??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? > ????? !! > ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? - ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? > ??? !!!!??? > ??? ???? ????? ?????-????? ! > ????? ???? ???? ??? ?-?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ??????? ??? ????? > ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? - ?????, ???? ????? ???? > ???? !!! > ??????? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, > ???? ????? On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, mendy stern wrote: > So you want to be the Rosh Yeshiva? Only if the yeshiva davens nusach HaGra! Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 19:36:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? ---------------- My shul does not, except that the previous (now deceased Rav) was very against it, quoting the Tur about embarrassing the Baal Korei. That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 20:00:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:00:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <04ba01d2f928$bced1db0$36c75910$@gmail.com> R' JR: R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? ------------------------ Maslow's highest level in his Hierarchy of Needs (in its later permutations) is self-transcendence. I think that's what you're talking about. Here's some further on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcenden ce KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 02:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:45:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ================================ We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 09:24:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: ?Pinhas? has turned back Chamati, My wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11) So, Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous, difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamati (my wrath), the two outside letters chet and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters, mem and tav, read meit ? death. The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meit) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai). (Also, if you remove the "W" (for Wilderness) from "wrath" and replace it with "O" (for Obedience to God), the ?orath? can be rearranged to read Torah). Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live. Norman Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 11:58:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:37am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote to Areivim: : In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla : attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. : : My review and analysis of his failed approach to halacha is at : http://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/2017/7/7/the-not-so-orthodox-embrace-of-the-new-age-movement Although RBR posted to Areivim, I have an Avodah question. To quote: > To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For > example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has > been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to > the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved > as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies > it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, > or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it > globally. And the article discusses things like auras and other New Age ideas that if traced back to their origins one will find AZ. Is it all that different than the gemara's discussion or wearing a fox's tooth, where even a Rationalist like the Rambam (Shabbos 19:13) permits? Darkhei Emori are allowed for refu'ah (AZ 67a). Also Rashi (Chullin 77b "yeish") which according to the Panim Me'iros (1:36) includes any act to the body to be healed, but not "spooky action at a distance" (to quote Dr Einstein out of context). The Ran (Chullin ad loc) based on this Rashi explicitly permits any act we know works to heal, even if the workings are metaphysical. So is the difference only in which metaphysics I personally believe is real, and which is -- again, IMHO -- "woowoo"? And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? Are the laws of tereifos, which say put despite later findings about what an animal can live 12 months with, and what not, typical and precedent to say we go with Chazal's science, law is law, ignore the science? Or is it an exception because tereifos is halakhah leMoshe miSinai? I could see the standard of medical testing being decided by that question... Or... when it comes to which saqanos one is allowed to risk, the standard is normal and accepted. If people tend to climb trees to pick dates, it is mutar to get a job risking a fall from the top of a date-palm. Perhaps medicine too is defined by societal standards. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 12:27:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> References: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> Message-ID: And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 14:47:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170710214723.GA29132@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to : be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this : desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's : knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or : general society)? >From a recent blog post of mine, The Interpersonal Aspect of Parah Adumah : To illustrate how the Yerushalmi works, I enjoy taking a rather extreme case -- Berakhos 7:1, 51b: 1. Rav Huna said: Three who eat, this one by himself, this one by himself, and this one by himself, who then mix together should bentch with a mezuman. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three people, so that each ate with an obligation of zimun, even if from different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may make a zimun] when they ate together. 1. Rabbi Yonah [commented] on that which Rab Hunah [was just quoted as saying]: If [the kohein] dipped three hyssop sprigs [into the water made with the ashes of a parah adumah], this one by itself and this one by itself, and mixed them [the hyssops] together, one may sprinkle [the person needing taharah] with them. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three sprigs, so that each sprig was dipped as part of a group of three, even if different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may may be used for sprinkling parah adumah water] when they were dipped together. ... But what justifies this comparison? Is it really an expectation that all groups of three ought to be alike, regardless of the topic or the sort of group? In 1973, Ernest Becker wrote a book on philosophy and psychology titled "The Denial of Death". To give a thumbnail of his basic thesis, here are some snippets from [38]The Becker Foundation's "Theories" page: "[T]he basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death." ... The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of mortality. Since human beings have a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we can transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving the symbolic half. Becker describes human pursuit of "immortality projects" (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things. Still, for Becker, the only suitable source of meaning is transcendent, cosmic energy, divine purpose... Becker develops an idea that strikes most of us naturally. A central -- and perhaps THE central -- piece of our drives to contribute to community and to pursue a higher meaning is because these both overcome our own death. What I give my children outlives me in my children, grandchildren and beyond. What I contribute to the Jewish People is eternal because our nation is eternal. What I add to the development of humanity from Adam to the messiah outlives me in impacting the lives of generations to come. Fear of death, the need to embark on "immortality projects" can push us to expand our souls to beyond our mortal bodies. As Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to his substance and body. Above that one is someone who feels that his "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above that one is someone who can include in his "ani" all of his household and family.... And there are more levels in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the world and worlds are his "ani," and he himself is only one small limb in all of creation.... Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and [even] all of creation. The parah adumah is about overcoming death. A person who witnessed or experienced another's death is told to go through a ritual of changing tracks... He not only sees three sprigs from a scrubby bush, but also is thinking about joining together and how he can join with others. How to turn that conversation around from death and its reminder that we are merely physical beings toward death as a drive to go beyond that. We should not forget the most cryptic (choq-like) element of the parah adumah. ... [I]t requires that someone from the community reach out to them, even at their own expense. A true uniting of someone who might be thinking about death and man-as-mammal back into being a person contributing meaning to a larger community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 19:08:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on > chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better > standards for testing medicine? R' Joel Rich responded: > The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud > certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and > correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with > sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what > was known to them in their time." > > I'd appreciate specific examples I recently tried to learn a bit about Techum Shabbos. I was very surprised to find an entire siman (#399, with eleven se'ifim), giving details of exactly how the techum is to be measured. For example, the first se'if specifies that we must use a linen rope exactly 50 amos long. I was very surprised that the halacha would write such things, rather than simply presuming that we'd be smart enough to use whatever procedures are generally accepted as accurate. This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do it. The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective one, and tradition might rule. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 21:51:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> R' JR: We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. -------------------------------- I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 04:56:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fb6f6b1-b8cd-4075-09ea-8f770a1b66bd@zahav.net.il> If the person is reading from a full Bible, I will just listen. If I am not sure what book he's reading from, I'll read it to myself. IIRC the Mishna Bruria takes it as a given that the reason most shuls don't read from the klaf is because of the cost. Given today's incomes and fancy shuls, that shouldn't be a factor. And yet, it is the rare beit knesset where they read from a klaf. Ben On 7/11/2017 6:51 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? > > KT, > MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 15:50:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170711225048.GA29349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be : corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to : themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach : Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. : : Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? I will confirm. ... WRT shuls that aren't leining from kelaf. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 17:09:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 18:31:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170712013159.GA6359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, : who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a : surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, : they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do : it. Say I were to use a shorter rope. Well, then my measurments would include more dips and bumps. Whereas the 50 ammah rope might cut a direct path, a shorter rope would have two segments, in different angles. The measure would be longer than if you just cut the tangent. (And in fact, since most landscape is fractal, or nearly fractal until you get cown to molecules, if your "ruler" were smaller than a grain of sand, you could probably measure 50 amos along the wrinkles of the surface within an arm's reach of where you started.) So, the length of the rope will actually change the final measure. The navi implies that a shorter rope would be /too/ accurate, forcing a smaller measure than necessary. The weight of the chain means that sagging is more common, as lest if you aren't a surveyor. Or maybe the exact strechiness of linen - less than wool but more than metal, is also part of the actual measure. ... : The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might : agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better : procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring : distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular : procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective : science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective And to reframe where I was going above in these terms: There are times when Chazal are not trying to establish objective facts. (Or, to revive another old thread and my hangup about how halakhah defines metzi'us: ... to establish as objectively as possible those facts that could potentially enter our subjective experience.) In nidon didan, the question would be: In order for a treatment not to be derekh emori, and to be allowed on Shabbos where medicine for a choleh sh'ein bo saqanah would be allows, does it 1- have to be established as potentially effect to the best we can establish it? or 2- have to be accepted as potentially effective by chazaqah, which is the normal rule for justifying presumption in cases of doubt? How objetive are we being asked to be? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 12 19:06:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:06:59 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not Shechted? Meaning, if we have a creature that cannot be Shechted, but it is not a non-Kosher species, it might be a Neveilah but be Kosher to eat because there is no prohibition on eating Neveilah. The non-fully gestated cow sheep or goat, even if it is born in the normal manner, is not classified in Halacha as Bakar or Tzon. See Rashi Chulin 72b end of Mishneh. It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 03:33:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170713103351.GD14756@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:54:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ :> Love of Torah does not always translate into love of :> people -- or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk :> caustically noted that increased religious observance is not :> always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather :> sometimes it is for the sake of "worshipping the Shulchan Aruch." In R' Shlomo Wolbe, Alei Shur, vol II, "Frumkeit" , speaks of halachic obervant not for the sake of worshipping G-d, but speaks to why one would "worship the SA" if it isn't about G-d. A translation of the opening: > Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge to connect to the Creator. This > instinct is also found in animals. King David said, " The young lions roar > after their prey, and seek their food from G-d." (Psalms 104:21) "He gives > to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." (Psalms 147:9) > There is no need to understand these verses as [mere] figures of > speech -- animals have an instinctive sense that there exists One who > is concerned about their sustenance. This instinct [also] operates in > man -- on a higher level, of course. This natural frumkeit [instinct] > assists us in our service of G-d, and without this natural assistance > our service would would be extremely heavy upon us. However, frumkeit, > like any other instinctive urge that operates within man, is naturally > egotistical and self-centered. Accordingly, frumkeit drives a person to > do only that which is good for himself -- [in contrast, positive] actions > between man and his fellow man, as well as wholehearted actions between > man and G-d are not fueled by frumkeit. One who bases his service on it > alone remains egocentric. Even if he were to impose many stringencies > upon himself, he would not become a man of kindness, and he would not > reach [the level of] altruistic service. This is what necessitates that > we base our service specifically on intellect... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 16:31:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:00:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3abd2947-8a52-7433-c908-731af71507b2@sero.name> On 13/07/17 19:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr > Gouraud of the US. Google misinforms you. See, e.g., http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1412.htm#20 Or, lehavdil, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/1935454 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:37:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> R' MB: The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. --------------------------------- Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which was intended for facial hair. KT, MYG P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:11:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20170714151122.GB32531@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: : Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which : was intended for facial hair. It says that the poor "waxed" themselves with sid; and I am assumign that's not for skin as sensitive as cheeks. The rich used soles. Was this as an abrasive? Is fine flour even abrasive, or (as I seem to recall of today's grindings) -- soft? I think the rich used white makeup. And benos melakhim used shemen hamor, which we are told is acidic olive oil from underripe olives. While I do not doubt that benos melakhim tried this a means to reduce hair growth (the gemara says it also ma'adan habasar) I do doubt it worked. More recently (meaning, up to the mass production of depilatories) in Europe, cat's urine (for the ammonia, a strong base) or vinegar (an acid) were used. Both were believed to prevent or reduce hair growth, not remove what did gwo. But both failed double-blind testing. : P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use : wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. Many NA nations also tend to produce far less facial hair than most Jewish men to start with. I guess people can learn to get used to it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714152753.GA14639@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:59PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not : Shechted? In his Bar Mitzvah derashah, R' Chaim Brisker proved that neveilah and tereifah were aspects of the same underlying issur. Thus explaining (among other points I do not remember) why the Rambam holds that a neveilah and a tereifah can be metz'tarfos to a kezayis issur. Which would imply that WRT eating, all non-shechted meat is the same, and the issur is the lack of shechitah, not the tum'as neveilah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:47:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714154729.GB14639@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies : that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that : contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad : just like he blesses for the good." But that doesn't mean he must bless for the bad whenever he blesses for the good. Which is I think the chiluq that resolves the problems you raised. : That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say : one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one : experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On : *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is : irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Actually, even painful effects of the same occasion. Like the textbook case: Inheriting a large some of money requires making both Dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. : Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are : talking about two different situations... I think they are both talking about the good and tragic in the same situations. The first mishnah is prohibiting someone from even implying in a non-response context that when experiencing tragedy, one can skip Dayan ha'emes. : So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually : followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It : turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is : mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that : He *does* good.... Mah beinaihu? After all, all His "Middos" are about appearances and how the effects of his Action look to us. And actually, it pretty explicitly says in one point that it's about G-d appearing to us as Good -- "'haTov' shimkha". But as I opened, I didn't see Megillah as saying when we offer general thanks, it must be about both. Rather, he cannot be the kind of peson that skips thanking Him for those things He does "for our own good" (to paraphrase the stereotypical parent line). And thus, no problem in the 4th berakhah of bentching, either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:08:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: . R' Meir G Rabi asked: > It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just > like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. Why can't a horse be shechted? Is it missing the simanim? Of course, it would still be assur to eat the horse because it is a tamay species, but would that prevent one from doing a valid shechita? (I vaguely recall a case where a choleh sheyesh bo sakana was prescribed pork by his doctor, and the rav told him to shecht the chazir.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:02:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of him that is generally accepted as accurate? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:26:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure > I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone > reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only > the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go > 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? I have no idea what you mean by "litvishe" in this context. Do you mean Nusach Ashenaz, or Yeshivish, or In A Yeshiva, or something else? Anyway, in the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls and yeshivos that I have attended, virtually no one reads the haftara to himself, regardless of whether the Reader is reading from a klaf, a printed Tanach, or a Chumash. And those few who *do* read it to themselves are (unfortunately) loud enough to make it difficult to hear the Reader. In the Nusach Sefard shuls I've been to, there much more people reading to themselves. In fact, the Reader often doesn't even attempt to raise his voice so that others can hear him. But I've attended Nusach Sefard shuls rarely enough that I cannot venture a guess about the percentages. R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:23:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:23:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185632c6b5e74915992256cfd1207daf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ because I assumed that one was not being yotzeih with that reading but one's own Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 20:00:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:00:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes > are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of > the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an > educational thing"? I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. There is a chiyuv for a tzibur to read the Torah, although not on any individual to hear it. Even if ten men come into shul after krias hatorah they do not have to make it up, but if it was not read at all then the tzibur must make it up. But with the haftarah even if it was not read at all they need not make it up; this shows that there is no chiyuv, and therefore nothing that can be said not to have been fulfilled. Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:24:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? Or to be less pretencious: *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos on the other side? My wife is a righty and we use joint accounts. We are both listed as owners, and both of our names were on the mortgage. Even if I were supposed to hang my mezuzos on the left, are we shutefim in owning the house and therefore it should follow the rightward norm? I asked R' Gidon Rothstein, since it was his recent post on Torah Musings that launched my wondering, and he felt that it would go by the assumption that typical people coming in and out of the house are righty, and the owner's handedness shouldn't matter. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 08:25:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> References: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/07/17 22:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the > baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? > > Or to be less pretencious:*Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his > mezuzos on the other side? I wouldn't expect it, because I don't see any sevara to differentiate between houses based on who the owner is. Mezuzah is (lich'orah) a chovas cheftza, and the house is not left-handed! (See http://tinyurl.com/y9btfa9c , who cites R Chaim Brisker, Stencil #3) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/2017 6:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes >> are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of >> the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an >> educational thing"? > > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let > alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply that it's not just casual reading? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170716193026.GA17994@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that : imply that it's not just casual reading? to strengthen the point, that "we" includes Sepharadim, who don't make berakhos on minhagim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 19:16:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28c39ae9-0df9-89c0-ea06-a5e1b0b700a7@sero.name> On 16/07/17 15:20, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let >> alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. > > But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply > that it's not just casual reading? It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a missed haftara. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:42:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The problem with OU DE In-Reply-To: References: <1500310874499.90870@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170718214244.GA27595@aishdas.org> On 7/17/2017 7:03 PM, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: > Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a > Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel > bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is > that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not > simultaneously. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote: : Why not? Bateil is bateil. See Chullin 11b. Dagim that "alu" into a qe'ara of meat may be eaten with milchig. But going on a plate of meat -- what does that mean? Does it mean cooking? Ashkenazim hold, "'alu' -- aval lo nisbashlu". It's na"t bar na"t. The Tur, the YD 95, the BY's discussion of the Rivan and Tosafos, Rama YD s' 2, the Shakh s"q 3, and the AhS s' 5,11-15 assert as much halakhah lema'aseh. The way you treat bitul, there would be no such thing as nosein ta'am. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:24:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: <596E7C94.5030109@schnurassociates.com> Our K'vasikin minyan at the Young Israel of Ave k in Flatbush, K & East 29, (45 minutes before HaNetz on Shabbos and YT, 30 minutes on cholo shel moed and RH), reads from a klaf only al pi HaGra and only the baal k'riah reads while everyone else just listens and answers awmen (no BHUS) -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos > on the other side? Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it on the right side of the one who enters." And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 16:47:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:47:22 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: R Akiva Miller asked - why can a horse not be Shechted? A horse cannot be Shechted the same way that a G cannot perform Shechitah. Shechitah is not a mechanical action performed to meet certain criteria - Shechitah requires the right person, the right animal and the proper action. The Mishneh Chullin 72b asks a Q we would never ask, in fact it takes a very long time to actually read and make sense of the Mishneh, so counter intuitive is its premise. Why is it that a horse is a Neveilah even if it is Shechted whereas a cow which is Shechted is not a Neveilah in spite of it being a Tereifa? In our mind, the non-Kosher status of a Tereifa is a consequence of its ritual blemish which in no way affects the Shechitah; of course the Shechitah should prevent the animal becoming a Neveilah. But that is not how the Mishneh sees things - the Mishneh understands that the Tereifa status of the cow invalidates the Shechitah - it is, in the Mishneh's mind, equivalent to Shechting a horse. The Mishneh answers that Yesh BeMino Shechitah - meaning, although the animal itself ought to be deemed not Shechted, nevertheless as a species it has an association with Shechitah so the Shechitah will, in spite of being imperfect, prevent it becoming a Neveilah. And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. R Micha already noted that this touches upon the [in]famous bar-mitzvah Pshettel of R Chaim. But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The Gemara [Chullin 113] requires a special Ribbuy to teach that there is an Issur to cook premature born cow with milk Gedi LeRabbos Es HaShellil. Why? Why might we think it is not like a regular cow? The Tiferes YaAkov explains that such an animal has no Issur Cheilev, Chullin 75a, which is unsurprising considering that it is not a BeHeimah, so we may well have argued there is no Issur BBCh; KMLan that it is deemed to be Bassar for the Issur of BBCh. Now think about this - a Jew may not cook nor eat BBCh If a Yid however is about to eat Cheilev, which he may not cook with milk since it is deemed to be Bassar, we cannot warn him that he is transgressing the Issur of eating BBCh. Why? Because Ein Issur Chal Al Issur - once the Issur of Cheilev is already in place the later Issur of BBCh cannot take hold. Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Which seems to indicate that although it is a Neveilah, there is no Issur to eat a prematurely born cow. [To be sure we would need to verify that it has not entered its ninth month.] Hence my Q - Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:23:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, > let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps "minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes? > Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read > at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is that we're supposed to be doing? In a later post, he wrote: > It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's > takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that > one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias > hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this > from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it > must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a > missed haftara. I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read. Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:31:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> On 7/19/2017 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay > when the haftarah is read improperly? I don't think the question works. Consider: we have a chiyuv to daven shmoneh esrei. But there are different girsaot, so clearly, exact wording isn't critical to fulfilling the requirement. So we already see that there are different levels of chiyuvim, and that we are more medayek on exact wording on some levels than others. Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to something like haftara than there is for Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719101803.GA11560@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos :> on the other side? : Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it : on the right side of the one who enters." : And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And : there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Besheim the Mordechai. The Shakh) says this is true even if the lefty lives alone or the whole family is lefty. Because mezuzah is a chiyuv on the house, not like tefillin's chiyuv, which is on the guf. The Be'eir Heiteiv quotes the Shakh, adding "vekhein nohagim". The AhS (s' 5) gives multiple reasons: 1- A house is made for anyone who lives there, not this specific person. Which might be the same explanation, might not. Seems related to the fact that we do not take mezuzos down when the next owner is Jewish. 2- He contrasts to tefillin, where the pasuq uses the word "yadkha" and we darshen "yad keihah", whereas "beisekha" is used to darshen the din that it's direction from which one enters. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 05:46:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84213f099d8841fb92a75e4a8d758038@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 04:27:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's > surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" > when it comes to something like haftara than there is for > Torah. We seem to agree that it *IS* possible to read the haftarah IMproperly, in contrast to R' Zev Sero, who wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be > read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't > be invalid. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 06:52:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> On 18/07/17 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas > chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, But that is key. What is a chiyuv, or rather in Hebrew a chovah? As anyone who's read an Ivrit bank statement or balance sheet can tell you, it's a liability. "Lotzeis y'dei chovah", or "being yotzei", means discharging that liability. If there is no chovah then there is nothing from which to exit; one cannot speak of being yotzei something that is not a chiyuv. Now krias hatorah is not a chovah on any individual. If one missed leining one shabbos one needn't make it up. Even if there are 10 men who missed it, and therefore could make it up if they wanted to, they don't. But it is a chovah on the tzibbur; if for some reason an entire community was unable to read the Torah one week they must make it up the next week by reading two sedros. If they don't then their liability has not been discharged. When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". Of course if it is to be read it should be read correctly. *Anything* that is read should be read correctly; there is no virtue in reading carelessly, as if one's words are of no importance so it doesn't matter if one butchers them. But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, and since not reading it leaves no undischarged liability on the community therefore a bad reading doesn't do so either. > Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim > correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is > that we're supposed to be doing? Suppose my argument is incorrect, and there *is* some obligation which the community must discharge? How long a reading counts? We know that the gemara's mention of 21 pesukim is merely a recommendation, since we routinely disregard it. So how small *can* we make it? By analogy with krias hatorah we can say that fewer than three pesukim is not a reading at all. But maybe the analogy is inapt, and the takana is fulfilled by *any* reading from the nevi'im, even just one pasuk, or perhaps even a single phrase. After all the whole takanah is simply in memory of the time when krias hatorah was banned, so we read nevi'im instead; so perhaps even a very small reading is enough to evoke this memory. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, >>> This illustrates why I suggested avoiding words like "chiyuv". Is our goal to be in a status of "no worse than not having read it at all"? Surely not! If we would be satisfied with such, then why do we bother reading it? Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I don't understand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:36:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: <51a89e09-5077-e733-156f-9027c6f70dc9@sero.name> On 19/07/17 13:20, Akiva Miller wrote: > > Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting > someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or > whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems > to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I > don't understand. I'm saying that it's not *required*, and therefore it becomes a highly situational question of balancing the reader's sensitivity and the tircha detzibura against a desire to hear a haftara that doesn't grate on the nerves. There's no "I'm sorry but if we don't correct him we won't be yotzei". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 12:43:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719194312.GA13614@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. : I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of : him that is generally accepted as accurate? Mequbalim in Itali had a mesorah from the Rama miFano (late 16th - early 17th cent) that beards were only appropriate in EY. The Ramchal's lack of beard was mentioned in the charges against him when he was drummed out of Italy for teaching a very messianic Qabbalah too soon after Shabbeta Zvi. Someone once showed me a Chasam Sofer and a Chidah which refer to this practice. But I couldn't find it. Meanwhile, I found Gilyon Maharshah (R' Shelomo Eiger), at the end of YD 181, says that kamah gedolei hamequbalim, talmidei haAri, who cut their beards with scissors. So, scissors is no my default assumption, which means they probably had some visible stuble, if not enough to qualify as a "beard". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 02:09:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> References: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> Message-ID: <19840673-e64a-c7e5-41b9-92f64dd10daf@zahav.net.il> Ikkar ha-din, someone who can't properly enunciate Hebrew letters isn't allowed to pray from the amud, never mind read the Torah or Haftorah. I don't know if there is a need to correct someone who consistently makes mistakes but there is certainly no reason to allow him to read at all if he can't do it properly. As an aside: one of my rabbis said that RYBS didn't correct someone in class who made mistakes reading the Gemara text but if someone made a mistake with a pasuk in the Gemara, then the Rav let him have it. Ben On 7/19/2017 12:31 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot > more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to > something like haftara than there is for Torah. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:11:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then > I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant. I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe "tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also. Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors, including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria Message-ID: RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing about the nature of the original obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 24 11:53:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah Message-ID: <20170724185345.GA20358@aishdas.org> In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61) discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads "leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving her a real gett. The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because "almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other misspellings that have only one possible intent. I was wondering if this is too fanciful: Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah" could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often given given in CE. Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could cross the readers mind. Maybe? Or too creative? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 06:47:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 12:40:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 08:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721@aishdas.org> One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 09:50:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:36:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:34:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:31:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:13:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 12:10:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:21:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:49:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> References: <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 23:38:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and historical. He brings parts of the midrashim about Avraham Avinu's early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for any other reason than to understand the historical facts. Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 26 July 2017 08:49 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Washing Clothes During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 2. The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 3. Menorah on Arch of Titus (Micha Berger via Avodah) 4. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 5. Showering During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 6. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 7. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 8. Re: alma vs. almah (elazar teitz via Avodah) 9. Re: alma vs. almah (Micha Berger via Avodah) 10. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 11. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/494286688/Ohr-Somayach-Logo-150sq_bigger.jpg] Showering During the Nine Days?! by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz tinyurl.com YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger , avodah The General Discussion Area for Avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"; format="flowed" On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , llevine at stevens.edu, Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 From: elazar teitz via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: elazar teitz , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:13:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? Message-ID: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:14:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: From "Religion Within Reason" by Steven Cahn: "To have faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . To describe someone as a person of faith suggests that the individual is strong-willed, fearless, and unwavering." Question to all - what percentage of the frum world have no doubts? How many don't think about it at all? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 05:11:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering during the Nine days In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: see: Is it permissible to shower during the Nine Days? http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/is-it-permissible-to-shower-during-nine.html [or -mi] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:09:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? I am in the middle of R' Mordechai Torczyner's (CC-ed, please include him in replies) shiurim on ribis. http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&category=0,234696 In particular, shiurim no.s 3-5 are about refunds. It's under 2 hrs total, and if you know something of the sugya, 1.25x speed is doable. The first lines of the source sheet to those shiurim is "Lamah yeish chiyuv lehachzir ribis?" http://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=529082 If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:17:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih but not a tikkun for the lav) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 19:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Torczyner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim >> was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. >> If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would >> be subject to maaser kesafim. ... > Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is > something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih > but not a tikkun for the lav) > KT Hi R' Joel, Indeed, the Ritva's view is that ribbis, once paid, belongs to the creditor. The creditor is obligated to pay it back, but the money is his for purposes including Kiddushin. Other applications include whether the borrower has the power to forgive the repayment, and whether the creditor's heirs have a duty to repay. Kol tuv, Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 10:19:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:19:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c1d64f4e4564ec7b59a1d187400d9bd@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." ============================== I'd appreciate specific examples ============================== Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== I finally tracked down a copy of the book and read through it-I?d simply say that one must underline heavily the statement ?the best of what was known to them in their time? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:09:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> I read Rachel Levmore's "Decentralizing Religious Authority" at Teaser: Overview Orthodox Jewish life used to be a simpler matter for those who wanted to lead one. There was an unspoken system in place. One could approach the local rabbi with a question. If he didn't know, scholars higher up in the "hierarchy" could weigh in until the question reached the "gadol hador." Despite the plurality of approaches which always existed, there was a definitive address whose opinion would be accepted by all (or almost all). Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone. The present circumstances, which have witnessed a breakdown of authority in general society coupled with the absence of an uncontested authoritative Torah scholar, has led to absurd situations. Lacking agreed-upon "gedolim" today, a void exists... Without any proper halakhic discourse between various rabbis who deem themselves to be leaders (even if they lack followers)... And so on, with a pretty sociological take on the problem, and how it applies to controversy over the halachic prenup. As is usual for me, I'm intrigued by the theoretical meta-issue. Given that we've entered an era that there is a dirth of gedolim whose rulings are followed across multiple communities and eidot, is there a significant change to how halakhah is done? And I'm not saying this is entirely about nisqatnu hadoros, and how today's gedolim aren't like those of my youth. Some of it is also the effects of universal education, google, social-media cynicism and echo chamber, and the social trends that cause the popularity of such social media, and other societal changes that made people less likely to respect authority that isn't fully in agreement with what they decided the truth should be. Returning to snipping from the article: The Internet is not the forum for halakhic rows. Rabbinic tradition prescribes that halakhic disputes be conducted in depth, not superficially through "virtual" statements in cyberspace. Proper procedure dictates that rabbinic forums be held where differences of opinions can be [19]discussed face to face. If that is not possible, then [20]scholarly books are written or [21]rabbinic articles published. Alarmist attempts to create fear among innocent lay-people cannot be considered credible halakhic writing. And: [I]t is not for naught that the Mishnah directs us to choose who is our rabbi: [24]aseh lekha rav. It is your responsibility as a God-fearing Jew to determine which rabbi you will follow, according to your perception of his righteousness, scholarship, and derekh--philosophy of Jewish life. For a variety of reasons, it should be a rabbi who lives in the same community as you, not least since he would then be familiar with the challenges and facts of your life. In the United States, the Rabbinical Council of America has assembled an impressive body of rabbinic figures... Visible links ... 19. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-plea-from-Jerusalem-to-the-worlds-Orthodox-rabbis-483210 20. https://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%94.html?id=FpsqQwAACAAJ 24. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en My first stab at answering my own question is to wonder how long halakhah has been centralized around a few globally known gedolim. >From the geonim until the late 19th century, were there any? And even when there was a few posqim the whole world turned to (eg the geonim), how many question did they go to the gedolim for? Wouldn't the size of the world back then mean that most questions were far more local, with the mara de'asra having much more of a final say, with consensus being more of a regional thing? If halachic authority is being decentralized, is that something new, or a reversion to the norm, to how non-Sanhedrin (or as the Rambam would have it, post-talmudic) halakhah supposed to work? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:19:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:32:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170728203214.GA6178@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:38:18AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and : historical... But not the fantastical ones. Zev and I are arguing over two things: 1- What that includes. Zev believes that the inclusion of miracles does not make a medrash fantastical. And in fact to believe so be apiqursus. (Actually, Zev said the believer would be an apiqoreis; but the question whether every believer in apiqursus is necessarily an apiqoreis is far afield. So I'll still to this less controversial subset of his claim.) I disagree. The Rambam associates nissim with nevu'ah. Someone who lacks the yedi'ah to get one isn't going to be around to witness the other. Therefore, aggadic stories of miracles placed after Tanakh are fantastical. While Hashem could still in principle perform nissim, the Rambam believes He wouldn't. (Even when the story is told of a member of chazal and their level of ruach haqodesh.) 2- Is there a default? Zev understands that the default is to take a medrash historically, unless it must be ruled out. Again, I disagree. Medrashim are described as metaphors and riddles. The story and its historical content just isn't an issue. You can't assume anything about a medrash being historical or ahistorical qua medrash. A good bit of history and a good tall tale can be used equally well for teaching by metaphor. Implying, you would need outside reason to assume one or the other. Which is how the Rambam then says that if the story doesn't fit how the world works physically, metaphysicall or theologically -- ie what that translation I googled up called "fantastic" -- insisting its historical when it can't be is silly. So: : Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are : other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could : attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Be happy, no one in this conversation does. In my understanding of Zev's view, the Rambam says that any medrash that isn't impossible (and nissim are possible) should be assumed to be historical. In my view, wondering about the historicity of the story misses the whole point of medrash. But if the story does not fit the way Hashem runs the universe -- which according to the Rambam would include miracle stories happening after Malakhi, and many of the stories before -- assume it is ahistorical. : early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at : the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for : any other reason than to understand the historical facts. The Rambam there has outside reason to believe that medrashic description; it fit what the Nabatean Agriculture implied abot the birth of their religion. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:00:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 05:00:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: True, especially in the MO/DL world. The site had an article a few months ago about how the MO/DL simply aren't looking for gedolim or they define the role of a gadol in way that strips him of much of this supposed authority. Ben On 7/28/2017 10:19 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 14:51:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From ?Religion Within Reason? by Steven Cahn: ?To have > faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes > beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . It depends on what he means by "putting aside" one's doubts. If "putting aside" means that one does have doubts, but denies this fact, and acts as if his faith was complete, this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and in general, A Bad Thing. It is comparable to one who feigns humility; the odds of an eventual implosion are too high. Rather, one must be honest about his doubts or questions, and work on resolving them. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:12:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Math behind kulan chayav Message-ID: <20170730031250.GA2671@aishdas.org> "Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince." Lachlan J. Gunn, et al. Proceedings of The Royal Society A. To be published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00900 Magazine article on said paper (H/T R/Dr Josh Backon): https://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html This paper focuses on the case of identifying a criminal in a police line-up, archeological evidence, and crypography testing, but I'll just use the first as an example. Sometimes a line-up is like picking out an apple out of a group of bananas. But usually, there is measurable probability of error. Whether it's 48% for a criminal who runs through the crime scene or the probability of mistaking one's kidnapper, there is always some probability of error. Now, what's the probability that no one makes that error? If 10 people unanimously identify the same person, is it more likely that no one made the rror, or that there is a systemic bias leading people to select the same member of the line-up? This paper shows the math (and has plots for various probabilities of error). It takes far fewer people than you'd think before a unanimous finding becomes suspicious. And the paper even cites the din as precedent: However, this is not necessarily the case and more confirmations can surprisingly disimprove our confidence that the defendant has been correctly identified as the perpetrator. This type of possibility was recognised intuitively in ancient times. Under ancient Jewish law [13], one could not be unanimously convicted of a capital crime -- it was held that the absence of even one dissenting opinion among the judges indicated that there must remain some form of undiscovered exculpatory evidence. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 07:48:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20). I am attending a Bris on Tisha B'Av. May I say "Mazal Tov" to the baby's father? If I meet a sick person on Tisha B'Av, may I wish him a "Refuah Shleimah" (a full recovery)? Are these also prohibited forms of greeting? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l rules that Mazal Tov for a recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B'Av since it is considered a blessing and not a greeting (Dirshu M.B. Beiurim and Musofim 554:63 citing Halichos Shlomo Bein HaMitzorim Vol. 15 Orchos Halacha 30). However, if at all possible, one should wait for a different day to express this Mazal Tov (Chut Sheini Vol. 2 p. 327). Our minhag is to perform a Bris on Tisha B'Av after the Kinos are completed, even if it is before Chatzos (mid-day), because of Zerizim makdimim l'Mitzvos, those who serve Hashem with alacrity, do mitzvos as quickly as possible (Mechaber, Rama 559:7 and Mishna Berurah ibid s.k. 26). Rav Shlomo Zalman was of the opinion that one can certainly say "Mazal Tov" at the Bris even before Chatzos (ibid). Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l however rules that the Mazal Tov for the Bris should only be said after Chatzos (Dirshu M.B. ibid citing Shmaitza D'Moshe p. 431). Although "Sholom Aleichim" should not be said to an Avel (one who is in mourning), the Gesher HaChaim (21:67:7) permits wishing "Refuah Shleima" to an Avel who is ill, since this is considered a blessing and not a greeting. For the same reason it is permitted on Tisha B'Av to wish a "Refuah Shleima" to a person who is ill (Dirshu M.B. ibid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 10:24:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:48pm GMT, Professor L. Levine quoted today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis: : Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" : "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend : is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20)... I'm going to use this to share the quick thought in my most recent blog post: The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. Tzom qal! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 11:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 31/07/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say > "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the > table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time that day is a fast rather than a yomtov. Though we still hold out hope that that was last year. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time : that day is a fast rather than a yomtov... That was obviously my intent. HOWEVER... We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent ge'ulah. So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust. After all, a commemoration of the ge'ulah after Galus Edom would be far more compelling. (I mentioned this to someone after Maariv, and he suggested that since neither July or August line up with our months that well, maybe it'll be Tish'ah beLeo. I don't think it has the same commemorative quality.) -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 03:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Menuchah Schwat via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. > So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it > Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust... Tisha baChamishi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 06:27:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 8/1/2017 6:01 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used to be a day of mourning?" Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 08:40:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:27:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: :> We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent :> ge'ulah. ... : Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which : is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha : B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used : to be a day of mourning?" What's that "um" about? The month names being Babylonian is a given sitting behind the sentence you quote. It's an often referred to Y-mi, RH 1:2 (vilna 6a) "De'amar R' Chanina: shemos chadashim alu beyadam miBavel." Then going on to mention some pre-Bavli month names found in Tanakh - Risanim, Bul, Ziv, showing how that all changes in Nechemia and Esther. Sure, when talking about 9 beAv the fast, we may well teach them we called it 9 beAv. But, as I suggested in the OP, maybe after the ge'ulah from Galus Edom, we'll do the same with the Julian / Gregorian month names. It will, after all, be a much more momentus ge'ulah, being final and lasting. If Anshei Keneses haGedolah thought it was appropriate to commemorate one ge'ulah in this manner, perhaps we should assume al achas kamah vekamah the end of our current galus would be commemorated similarly. On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:01:50PM +0300, Menuchah Schwat wrote: : Tisha baChamishi That's ambiguous. The chumash uses "bachodesh" to be clearer about which is the day count, and which is the month. Even if the month number is a cardinal ("-i" - fifTH) and the day is an ordinal (no suffix) the way you wrote them. You don't explain *why* you think we'd go back to the biblical system, rather than commemorating the ge'ulah from Galus Edom. After all, even the nevi'im didn't stick to the original numbered months. And I think my suggested parallel makes /some/ sense, if not necessarily what the Sanhedrin will end up deciding. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kinos: Hashem as Spaceman? In-Reply-To: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In Kinah #7 (Aholi Asher Ta'avta), the Kalir wrote "v'nihyeita ketas bechalal". To our ears this evokes images of loneliness and isolation, of someone surrounded by vacuum, light-years from anywhere and anyone, but what did "chalal" even mean to people with a Ptolemaic model (if that) of the universe? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:34:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 14:34:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av Message-ID: I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana ---------------------- I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it even is one), I think you are doing OK! -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 15:04:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <187d2f.769a1cbd.46b254d0@aol.com> From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah " >> There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. << Kol tuv, Ilana >>>>>> What you did instinctively was the right thing to do. Here is what Eliyahu Kitov says in _The Book of Our Heritage_: --quote-- It is prohibited to greet one's friend or acquaintance on Tisha B'Av, and it is even prohibited to say "Good morning." If, however, one is greeted, he should answer in a low tone, in order not to arouse resentment." --end quote-- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 21:51:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:51:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed Message-ID: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand that not everyone agrees with this position). Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can determine where the issur actually is? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 23:57:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB, quoting Rachel Levmore: > Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox > Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. > Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, > Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef were still alive and active. And if someone writes a similar article in another few decades, perhaps some of today's great poskim will have been added posthumously to the list... Not to be cynical, but could it be that one of the factors that makes a gadol universally recognized and accepted across Orthodoxy is that he is no longer among the living? Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 04:18:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:18:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed In-Reply-To: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> References: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 02/08/17 00:51, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har > Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess > information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can > certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand > that not everyone agrees with this position). > > Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur > karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can > determine where the issur actually is? *Any* case where we got new information. Take the classic case of two pieces of fat, one shuman and one chelev, but one doesn't know which is which, and then one later finds out. Before finding out both were assur; if one ate one of them beshogeg one brings an asham and the other piece remains assur. Once the new information is acquired the shuman becomes permitted, and if it transpired that one ate the chelev one must now bring a chatas. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 05:07:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from the OU: > The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra > Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as > greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" > (Mechaber 554:20). ... ... > > Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l rules that Mazal Tov for a > recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B?Av since it is > considered a blessing and not a greeting. ... ... I honestly don't understand the distinction that causes a "greeting" to be assur, while allowing a "blessing" to be mutar. I would think that "good morning" is a blessing. Aren't we praying that the other person's morning will be a good one? Perhaps the distinction is in the degree of kavana with which the "good morning" is given and received. After all, if it were said as a blessing, and received as one, then wouldn't we respond to the "good morning" with something like "amen"? Perhaps we can prove "good morning" to be a mere greeting, by pointing out that the response is usually a perfunctory repeat of the words "good morning", rather than anything serious. In this light, I confidently suggest that "How are you?" is definitely a greeting, because usually no one expects a response other than "okay" or "fine". What of the Mechaber's halacha of "Shalom Aleichem"? Surely we would agree that "Shalom Aleichem" is a blessing, no? After all, the response to "Shalom Aleichem" is "Aleichem Shalom", and I suspect (YMMV) that this is usually sincere rather than perfunctory. This brings us to the very core of this halacha: RSZA is drawing a line between greeting and blessing, and his halacha about Mazel Tov makes no sense (to me) unless "Shalom Aleichem" is defined as the prototypical *greeting*, and *not* a blessing. I can't imagine why this would be so, unless the Mechaber already felt that "Shalom Aleichem" was usually said perfunctorially. And that's sad. Can anyone offer a different analysis of these various phrases? Finally, it seems to me that "perfunctory" is a good summary of why we can bring American money into a bathroom, despite the words "In God We Trust" being on them: Those words have become a mere perfunctory slogan, and are no longer a real statement of faith. But if we have downgraded "Shalom Aleichem" from blessing to greeting with that same logic, then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? Do any other poskim make this distinction (either in Hilchos Tish'a B'av, or in Hilchos Aveilus, or for that matter in Hilchos What Not To Do Before Shacharis) between a greeting and a blessing? I'd love to see it defined more clearly. (There was a point in my life when if I'd sneeze and someone would say "God bless you", my response was "Amen". But I stopped that fairly quickly as people tended to find my response quite jarring. Maybe "God bless you" is also in the category of a perfunctory greeting that should not be done on Tish'a B'av?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 06:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170802132730.GB27820@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:57:08AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack : of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef : were still alive and active... In the US, recognition of R' Henkin and RMF were near-universal. And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. In Israel, I think the most recent candidates are pre-Shas ROY and RSZA. Although ROY's pesaqim are distinctly Sepharadi, I think it's commonly accepted that Yabia Omer is one of the few sefarim written in my lifetime people will be learning centuries from now. My mention of pre-Shas points to something I think is one of the causes. The search for "daas Torah" on political and societal matters makes enemies and cynics from among those who disagree. As for RSZA, RALichtenstein notes that he posessed a gedulah different in kind, not just degree [inevitable nisqatnu hadoros], than those we've looked up to since. I highly recommend "Im Da'at Ein, Manhigut Minayin?" . In it RAL defends da'as Torah as a doctrine, but questions if anyone since RSZA has been qualified to have it. To quote my own pitgam from past posts: A gadol is tall enough to see over our fences. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 09:05:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Eleazar Hakalir Message-ID: Yesterday during the fast, I was reading about R. Eleazar Hakalir, and was struck by the fact that historians aren't sure when he lived, with some saying he lived during Mishnaic times and others saying he lived as late as the 11th century. I realize that pinpointing dates during this time period is difficult, but a 900 year swing seems very unusual. Is anyone familiar with any recent papers or articles that attempts to zero in on the real date when this poet lived? Any additional info appreciated. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 18:25:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170803012513.GC16841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: :> I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, :> but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk :> hurting his feelings. : I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it : even is one), I think you are doing OK! I am wondering whether cheerfully (rather than pro-forma, yotzei-zain, replying so as not to offend) greeting someone in this situation despite 9 beAv is an instance of huterah or dekhuyah. (Thus overanalyzing your parenthetic remark.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 4 13:52:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: ?A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha *minyanim* questioned my saying "*y'yasheir kochacha*" to one of the *olim* (FWIW, I was the *bal qorei*) and, a few min.s later, brought to the *bimah* an Artscroll-*dinim* paragraph (from the back of its 9Av *siddur*) about not greeting someone; my response, as you might guess, was that "*y'yasheir* /*yeeshar kochacha*" was not a greeting. A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "*Shalom aleichem*", like M'gilas Rus' "*H' imachem* // *y'varechcha H'*", is also a blessing, but the "problem"? comes up when it's utilized as a greeting. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 5 23:33:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:33:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and fish blood? we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking liquid and almond milk? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within > their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 04:29:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <221F9E1E-C833-4DA1-83A2-577056D221BF@cox.net> R? Akiva wrote: ?.then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? I would say the reason is that Shalom is one of God?s Names. There was once a study done on people?s responses to ?How are you?? The respondent was supposed to answer in the negative. So instead of saying ?fine, thank you,? the response would be either ?terrible,? ?awful,? ?not good,? etc. and guess what? Something like 90% would not even have realized the negative response. In other words, it is very perfunctory when someone greets someone else in a normal setting. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 09:55:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table > and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher > but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. > What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and > fish blood? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? > we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table > at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond > milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking > liquid and almond milk? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring white milk looking liquid to the meaty dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? I suspect that in both cases, you are noting the explicit prohibition against doing these things and then you are presuming that these prohibitions apply *only* to these specific foods. Then, having made that presumption, you are asking why this distinction exists. I suggest that this is an improper procedure. It would be more correct to note the prohibition about these specific things, and then to *ASK* whether the prohibition also applies to similar things. You might find that the prohibition *does* extend to other things: Example #2: Soy milk. When pareve coffee creamers first became easily available, they were all soy-based. Yet the hashgachos warned us to serve it only in the original container, precisely because of the halacha you cite. Example #1: Suppose you have a lightly-cooked steak in your plate. Some "red blood looking liquid" is leaking out of the meat onto the plate, and is absorbed into the mashed potatoes. There's no issur against those potatoes. I'm pretty sure you can even mix it up into the potatoes deliberately, or dip your bread into it and eat it. But can you pour it out of the plate, into a glass and *drink* it? I don't know. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 13:44:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Lecture from Herzog Yemei Iyun Message-ID: <25bb89bf-b093-17da-6af7-7c80276a5d1a@zahav.net.il> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXeFDdchKY One of the lectures at this year's Yemei Iyun at Herzog: Rav Bazaq (Har Etzion) and Rav Kashtiel (Yeshivat Eli) explain a story in Nach (Isha HaShunamite) each in his way. In doing so, they try to demonstrate the differences in approach between what is called "Tanach b'Gova Einayim" and "HaKav". According to a story that I read about this lecture, this was the first time, after years and years of fighting (sometimes extremely fierce fighting) between proponents of each approach, that two people got together and gave a lesson together. There have been conferences where each side explains why their approach is good and the other side is wrong, but this is the first time that two people taught together. The lectures are in conversational Hebrew. Besides the demonstration of the different approaches, the lectures themselves about the story are fantastic. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 22:20:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:20:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom haAtzamut. Ben On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Micha Berger wrote: > >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. > > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? > > Akiva Miller \ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 07:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> References: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170807140514.GC15062@aishdas.org> : On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > R' Micha Berger wrote: : >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within : >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. : > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom : haAtzamut. I knew he was capable of it because I know several such stories. In the future, try to remember everything I wrote over all of Avodah's 19 years' history. It would save me time. I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning something that non-intuitive. Including when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 18:45:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:45:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with > the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning > something that non-intuitive. I was trying to come up with a snappy comeback, but the truth is that I simply have a rotten memory. Or, perhaps, the non-intuitive stuff is lost more easily, precisely because the anti-intuitiveness makes it more difficult for the brain to reconstruct the chain of links. We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. > when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. > RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if > it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." I wish I had been aware of these shades of gray when I was younger. Thank you for sharing. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 07:29:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:54PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is : how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is : the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult : to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical reasons given: 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish model.) 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the community. (The usual Chassidish model.) 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from DT in general when he left Agudah.) #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and not necessarily personal ones. Here we're talking about halakhah. So, I'd like to see if we can discuss the flipside of the discussion. Rather than asking about the heteronomy of following gedolei haposqim and why today's posqim seem to be failing getting that kind of fealty from certain large segments of the masses, what about the autonomy end? We have a very literate masses. More people can hit the primary sources themselves. And for those who can't, oir lack the patience to, there are more secondary and tertiary sources available in laaz than ever before. Joys of computerized publishing, which has made producing a book cheaper than ever. In this world, how much autonomy should a sho'el assume for himself? Which questions don't need asking? I presume a wide variety of opinion; I am more interested in various rationales than in any particular answer. What about the LOR -- do you have thoughts about when he should field the question, and when he should punt to his own rav or to a gadol? And does the ease at which anyone can be reached anywhere on the globe matter? Universal education, telecom, the web's ability to provide instand "research" are all bottom-up reasons our authority is being decentralized. With little to do on those elegable to assume that authority vs those of the past. Although the ease of LH and motzi sheim ra about those rabbanim with today's tech does enter into it to, r"l. If no one can become a navi in his childhood neighborhood, today's world makes it harder and harder to leave that effect. My own feeling is that anyone of East European ancestry who was not higi'ah lehora'ah who faces a new (for them) situation and doesn't get a sense of consensus from the Chayei Adam, Qitzur, MB and AhS should be asking a she'eilah. Notice that shows my own bias against popularist guides. Unless said guide was written by or recommended by one's poseiq as a viable resource. And in terms of autonomy vs heteronomy, I would be seeking a poseiq who (1) convinces me of the soundness of his reasoning; and (2) is willing to work with my givens on things like hashkafah and beliefs about metzi'us, where there are no rules of pesaq. As in RMF's pesaq about Hallel on YhA. (Tangent: Notice that there is little connection between pesaq and hashkafah on this one. RYBS, the Zionist, adhered to a meta-halakhah in which the barriers to saying Hallel are high, and came out against. As a compromise for LORs whose mispallelim won't tolerate that, he would advise the rav to pasqen that they omit the berakhah. Whereas RMF told Zionists that leshitasam, it would be appropriate to say Hellal WITH a berakhah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 08:45:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Kashrus of Braekel Message-ID: <20170808154508.GA12433@aishdas.org> They're now importing to EY from Europe a new breed of chicken, the braekel. See http://www.baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=37&ARTICLE_ID=90778 ... Members of the Eida Charedis' Vaad Shechita, prominent rabbonim and kashrus experts gathered in the home of Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita to determine if a new chicken, imported from Europe, has a kosher status. The discussion lasted for four hours! The new bird is called Braekel, and according to HaGaon HaRav Sternbuch, the bird is not kosher. However, in Bnei Brak, HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita has ruled it is kosher. The chicken was raised in Europe in an area void of Jews and Rav Sternbuch feels it lacks the `mesora' required. Wikipedia reports that it is indeed Gallus gallus domesticus, actual chicken in scientific taxonomy. And The Brakel is not cultivated for its meat, but merely for its egg-laying qualities. The breed is capable of producing 180 to 200 white eggs a year. This isn't remotely like the leghorn, a breed of chicken that has 2 "thumbs" and 2 other toes per claw, rather than the usual for kosher birds -- 1 "thumb" and 3. And it's accepted as kosher, in fact, the source of most of our eggs here in the states. But the breakel has normal simanim. For that matter, according to some pesaqim about why we can eat turkey (the context in which the kashrus of leghorn chickens most often comes up) we even accept Meleagris gallopavo, turkey, as being within the mesorah for chickens and they aren't even in the same genus! Third wiki-note, commenting on the two subtypes of braekel chicken that have since interbread into one: In the UK, USA and Australia, however, one can still find descendants of the Kempische Brakel under its old name 'Campine'. The Campine has evolved differently from the Brakel. The most noticeable difference is the hen-feathering of the rooster and the lower weight. We in the US are treating a bird that evolved (nishtanah hateva, if you prefer) from the breakel as kosher; no one requires checking if an egg is campine or not. It's not even like the mesorah has been silent; even if each breed of G. gallus domesticus needs it's own mesorah. So, lo zakhisi lehavin RMS's reluctance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 09:27:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> References: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <69647634-1f0b-8686-3b9b-f1fe2958ab37@sero.name> On 08/08/17 10:29, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning > to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical > reasons given: > > 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and > ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish > model.) > > 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the > community. (The usual Chassidish model.) > > 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would > ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to > Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the > current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and > doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, > and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from > DT in general when he left Agudah.) > > #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and > not necessarily personal ones. #4 All true knowledge is in the Torah, and finding it is a matter of making non-obvious connections. Therefore someone who has absorbed enough of it to do so can find the correct answer to anything, though he may not be able to explain how he did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 12:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hebrew manuscripts Message-ID: A database of ancient Hebrew manuscripts is now available at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLIS/en/ManuScript/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 18:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel Message-ID: . This past October (in Avodah 34:130) I mentioned a practice that I've seen growing in recent years, that of making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. I was learning about the issur of eating a large seudah on Erev Shabbos, and I came across something that seems very relevant to that practice. Form the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod Hashabbos" writes: "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 21:21:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:21:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142a02db-9198-65c3-9f5d-1b882fc5f525@sero.name> On 08/08/17 21:24, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of > appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, > making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." However, "to`ameha chayim zachu". Tasting a little of the Shabbos dishes, as opposed to gorging oneself on them, is very much kevod Shabbos, to increase the anticipation, like a sneak preview. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 11:58:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the : reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with : which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod : Hashabbos" writes: : "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of : appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, : making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." These motives have a nadka mina. If one fills up Fri afternoon on food they don't enjoy (perhaps it's healthful) or wouldn't eat in a formal or celebratory setting, one is running afoul of the SA's sevara, but not the PM's. In contrast, having significant amounts of Shabbos-appropriate food but not to the point of ruining one's appetite by the time maariv is over would be a problem according to the PM, but not the SA's sevara. Zev mentioned the case of tasting Shabbos food. The MB 250:2 uses the word "lit'om". The Machzor Vitri cites a lost Y-mi and invokes "to'ameha chaim zakhu" -- I think it's specifically te'imah. As in, less than a kezayis, no berakhah, not really eating. (Which is why I wrote last paragraph about "significant amounts".) It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. BUT.... The whole point of chulent is to have hot food in Shabbos lunch, to fulfill the obligation (SA OC 271:3) of making it the more special meal. (Rather than Fri night dinner. See Shaarei Teshuvah #1.) The AhS says one is not obligated to abstain from special Shabbos-lunch foods Fri night. But I'm talking about Thu night, altogether before Shabbos. O Seems to me that until someone finds a new "special Shabbos lunch food", Thu night chulent ought to be prohibited! Whereas one SHOULD just taste the chulent on Fri, and it is permitted (but sub-optimal) to have some with Fri night dinner. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 22:14:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:14:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Not just yeshiva guys. It has become a minor trendy thing for all sort of people to travel to Bnei Braq to get chulent. On 8/9/2017 8:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". > My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and > Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment > near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 04:43:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (=?utf-8?B?157XoNeV15fXlCDXqdeR15g=?= via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: The Mishna Brura clearly states that the reason for tasting on erev shabbat is "kedei letaken". This refers to tasting during the cooking process and does not fit with the whole kugel minhag. Menucha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 11:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] publishing trends Message-ID: I'd love to hear any analysis (or guesses) as to what are the percentages of different types of sefarim (both Hebrew and English) being published in the current era, how they differ from those in the past and, most interestingly to me, what are the drivers for these trends? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 15:37:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:37:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Milk, Blood and look alikes Message-ID: I fear that the Halachic posture of *Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to?* although making sense from a narrow perspective, actually invites Halachic disaster, and is quite incorrect. Halacha asserts all is permitted unless it is prohibited. Here is an example in which the Shach seems to assert that Maris Ayin is limited to its narrow description and is not to be expanded according to what makes sense to us. BP, those that have been found within a Shechted cow, require Shechita once they have walked about. Before they have walked about they do not require Shechita. However, Ben PeKuAh can also be created via natural breeding which goes on forever. So we can have a large herd of BP none of which are identifiable as BP. The Mechaber Paskens without qualifying, *until they have walked about* - that the naturally born BP all require Shechita. This would appear to suggest that they require Shechita even before they have walked about. And there is good reason to understand this to be the Halacha, after all in this herd there is absolutely no way to identify them as BP whereas those found in a Shechted mother are readily identified as being BP. And I presume that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, the Shach makes it clear that the decree that requires that they be Shechted applies only after they have walked about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 11 07:15:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Summer and Travel Videos Message-ID: <1502460917652.98832@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y8drmxm3 Kosher Summer and Travel Videos As you prepare to fire up the grill for the summer or hit the road on vacation, countless Kashrut issues arise: Can I cook on a public grill in a park? Can I use a hotel room microwave? How should one pray on an airplane? These commonly asked questions and many more will be answered in our 2017 Kosher summer and travel series. Your esteemed guide through this halachic journey? It's none other than Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of OU Kosher. View the questions and answers below! Can you cook on a BBQ that has previously been used for Non-Kosher meat? Can meat and fish be cooked on the same BBQ? Can you eat cut fruit from an uncertified vendor? Can you buy coffee from a non-kosher establishment or a kiosk? May you purchase salad from an uncertified entity when traveling on the road? What products am I permitted to eat from an ice cream store? What are the Halachos in regards to prayer on an airplane? What are the Kashrut issues with airline meals? Can in-room hotel microwaves be used without kashering? Is it permissible to take antihistamines or other medication without certification? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 13 06:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] piskei rid Message-ID: <591d6b28af34484fac75d4f2918958a9@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The bar ilan database notes that its version is from Yad Ha-Rav Herzog. Does anyone have a copy that can see who authored the footnotes? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 02:06:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 07:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken Message-ID: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. See the above URL for more. See also http://tinyurl.com/yckl2bqj YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 08:23:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From > http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h > Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that > he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. Since when is rabbi M any sort if authority in The USA? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 11:28:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:28:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> This whole thing reminds me of the one-a-generation broohaha over leghorn chickens. Leghorns and braekels are chickens, much the way chihuahuas are dogs, despire being rather unique looking dogs -- or chickens. Like other chickens, they are Gallus gallus domesticus. Not even a remote question of problems interbreeding. Every 20 years or so someone notices that the leghorn chicken has two "thumbs" pointing back, and two toes pointing forward, rather than the usual 3-and-1 we expect for kosher birds. And yet, white leghorns make beautifully white eggs, and so it is the breed most American chicken eggs come from. Actually, both it and the braekel chicken do indeed grab the perch in a 2-and-2 grip, once comfortably on it, they go to the 3-and-1 of the rest of the species. And like the leghorn chicken, the braekel chicken is a source of eggs in the US. However, not under the name "braekel". But America's campine chicken, which has the same kind of foot, was breed from the Kempishe Breakel. The question was resolved quite a while ago, which is why we in the US don't have to chase down which breed of chicken an egg came from. So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was raised, we were about to assur, and then it was found that in much of the world zebu was already being eaten as cow. And in fact, MOST tefillin made from gasos are zebu leather! The breakel, which is a normal enough part of the general chicken gene pool to get the usual taxonomical name -- Gallus gallus domesticus. But there are two subspecies of cow: those without a hump between their shoulder are Bos taurus taurus. Those that have such a hump, eg zebu, are Bos taurus indicus. But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can interbreed and produce fertile young, in which case how did any of these questions get started? The mesorah for chickens must therefore include oddballs of the min like leghorn, braekel and campine breeds, and that for cows must include the full min, both subspecies. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 13:42:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <692953b1-38ed-f530-7beb-1656bdc7942d@sero.name> On 14/08/17 14:28, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was > raised, we were about to assur, Very few were about to asser, because the view that a mesorah is needed for mammals is very much a daas yochid. > But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can > interbreed and produce fertile young This is true for mammals, not necessarily for birds. I'd put a different argument: Let's suppose that it *is* a new min, for which no mesorah can exist because it didn't exist until relatively recently. For that very reason we can be 100% certain that it isn't one of the 24 listed species, and therefore doesn't need a mesorah. And if it's *not* a new min then it's a chicken, and once again kosher (except according to Anan ben David y"sh). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 06:36:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:36:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn't this an issue, since they are using less than a revi'is (approximately 3.3 oz. - minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber's question) A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi'is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi'is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi'is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m'lo lugmav (half a revi'is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 14:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170815214945.GA13601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including :> the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha :> follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a :> shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow :> their minhag. Regardless of the shei'ur, so this is perhaps tangential.... The AhS talks about the difficulty in obtaining real wine, the kashrus of "wine" from soaked raisins, and thus the schnapps option. I wonder if so many rabbeim would have insisted on making qiddush on schnapps at all if wine were an affordable option where they lived. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 15:24:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: . R' Ben Waxman asked: > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot > right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the > members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset > on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the > right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine > no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose > money? My first thought is that this is a great example of a question that should be addressed to the rav of the beit knesset. There are so many factors that need to be weighed against each other, such as how badly the shul needs the money, and how many hurt feelings will be created by giving the wrong answer. As regards the comment "a sale is a sale" -- I'm not so sure. Sounds like a "davar shelo ba laolam" to me. Especially since we are considering the real possibility that a kohen guest might show up, rendering the auction questionable. Just my two grush. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 02:54:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Use of Stone Keilim During Bayis Sheini Message-ID: <20170816095450.GA3826@aishdas.org> See http://www.timesofisrael.com/2000-year-old-stone-workshop-discovered-near-where-jesus-turned-water-into-wine or http://j.mp/2v1gxan The Times of Israel By Amanda Borschel-Dan August 10, 2017, 11:51 am 2,000-year-old stone workshop discovered near where Jesus turned water into Only four Second Temple stoneware production centers have been unearthed in Israel Because it was immune to ritual impurity, the use of stoneware was rife among Jews during the Roman era ... A large 2,000-year-old Second Temple period chalkstone quarry and workshop was discovered at Reina in lower Galilee by a team of archaeologists headed by Dr. Yonatan Adler... A manmade chalkstone quarry cave was recently discovered between between Nazareth and the village of Kana. What is unique in this excavation is the additional find of a stoneware workshop -- one of only four in Israel. Although pottery was also in use during this period, archaeological digs around the region point to an uptick in stoneware during the Second Temple period -- likely for ritual purity reasons, as attested in the Talmud. "In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee also used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone," said Adler. ... "According to ancient Jewish ritual law, vessels made of pottery are easily made impure and must be broken. Stone, on the other hand, was thought to be a material which can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce some of their everyday tableware from stone," he said. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 04:45:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:45:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh Message-ID: . At first, I was going to pose these nitpicky questions on our Mesorah list. But then I found some answers, and I decided to share my journey with the whole chevra. If it doesn't put you to sleep from boredom, please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Shmos 1:10 - Paro starts panicking over the Jewish Problem. First, they're multiplying, and then, "ki sikrena milchama..." 1. What is the root of Sikrena? Kuf resh aleph, or kuf resh heh? 2a. If it is kuf resh heh - "if war happens" - then what is the aleph for? Is this a kri/ksiv situation? Does anyone explicitly refer to it as a kri/ksiv? 2b. If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? Why does every single translation and peirush render it as "if war occurs", or similar? Or do you know of any exceptions that I couldn't find? 3. What form is this word? My guess is that it is Kal, future, 3rd person feminine plural: "They(f) will...". That fits well with "proclaim", if "they(f)" refers to the attacking nations. But if the root is kuf resh heh, I don't know why the plural would be used. Is "milchama" some sort of plural or collective noun? Other relevant information: RSR Hirsch says that "sikrena" is a plural form, and therefore "milchama" is probably not the subject but the object. for the word's meaning, he refers us to Yeshaya 41:22, where this same word occurs. But as I see it, these words are not spelled the same: Where Shemos spells it with an aleph, Yeshaya has a yud. (I suppose Rav Hirsch considers this difference insignificant, but I'm not knowledgable enough to understand why.) I did find one lone voice who says that the root of "sikrena" is "read/call" and not "happen/occur". Namely, Mandelkern's Concordance. Yeshaya 41:22 appears on 1047d, in the root kuf-resh-heh. But he places our pasuk, Shemos 1:10, on 1043c, in the root kuf-resh-aleph. Another data point from Mandelkern: His opinion is that "sikrena" in Shemos 1:10 is a third-person plural verb. This is different from the second-person plural verb, which is spelled exactly the same, and appears in Rus 1:20 and 1:21, and in the Concordance on 1042a. I suspect that Mandelkern would endorse "*they* will proclaim war" as a correct translation. Finally, I tried a non-Jewish website devoted to translation issues. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7122.htm is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, and other similar sources. I probably could have gotten the same information from Mandelkern, but seeing their English translation on-screen made these examples jump out at me: Bereshis 42:4 - [Yaakov] said, "Lest disaster *happen* [to Binyamin]." Bereshis 49:1 - Yaakov said, "... I will tell you what will *happen* to you at the end of days." Vayikra 10:19 - Aharon told Moshe, "... such has *happened* to me..." Devarim 22:6 - When you *happen* upon a bird's nest... In all of the above, the Torah's word is spelled with a kuf-resh-ALEPH root. I find myself forced to concede that there is strong evidence (dare I call it "proof"?) that in addition to the usual meanings "read" and "call", kuf-resh-aleph can also mean "happen". Having said that, I was tempted to take this even farther. That page on BibleHub brings a lot examples where they translate kuf-resh-aleph as "meet". At first glance, I did not take it seriously; I felt that our common translation as "call" was more appropriate. For example, Shemos 5:3. where Moshe and Aharon tell Paro, "The God of the Hebrews nikra to us, so let us go for three days..." In my mind, this meant "Hashem called to us", and I rejected BibleHub's translation of "... has met with us." But then I read ("happened upon"? pun intended!) ArtScroll's translation, which is "...happened upon us." I was surprised by this, but I was even more surprised when I saw RSR Hirsch on this pasuk, where he tells us to look at Shemos 3:18, where he shows that these two roots (kuf resh aleph and kuf resh heh) are indeed similar. And so I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to translate Shemos 1:10 as "when a war happens". Does all this teach us anything about the small aleph in Vayikra 1:1? I leave that as an exercize for the reader. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 10:41:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish > or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? I don't think "proclaiming war" is something that can even happen in Hebrew. One can call *for* war, but the lamed is necessary. I can't think of any direct examples right now, but consider the parallel "vekarasa eleha leshalom". On the other hand we do have "ukrasem deror". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:25:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected cohen guest is the only option. If it is the aliyah itself which is sold then the cohen should be able to claim the shul had no right to sell it, and the choshen mishpat shailah is whether the shul or the buyer takes the loss. Obviously just my opinion not meant to second guess the mara d'atra. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? > > If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? > > If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:34:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:18 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I wonder if everyone agrees with the Machstzis Hashekel, i.e., would everyone agree that if you hold like the Taz the you can make kiddush on it? I was startled by the conclusion until I realized that "their minhag" refers to their own minhag, the the minhag of the Rebbes mentioned in the previous sentence. Still odd though, surely this is a psak halacha not a minhag. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn?t this an issue, since they are using less than a revi?is (approximately 3.3 oz. ? minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber?s question) > A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi?is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi?is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. > > Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi?is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m?lo lugmav (half a revi?is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. > > Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 15:22:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502922161954.91323@stevens.edu> Please see the article sent to me by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky that I have posted at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 04:55:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate Message-ID: A work around for agunot wanting to have kids: Rav Yitzhaq Yosef* ruled that an IVF child isn't a mamzer in a case of a married woman having her egg fertilized with the sperm of a man who who isn't her husband. Now an MK wants to use this psak to enable agunot to conceive via IVF and her kids won't have mamzerut problems (and have the treatment paid for by the state). * Yes other rabbis have given this ruling but when the Chief Rabbi gives a psak it gives a stronger basis for a knesset member to propose a law. See the article for more details (Hebrew): http://bit.ly/2uOmI6x I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A single woman is allowed to get IVF. Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 09:27:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170818162719.GF5755@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:25:19PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen : in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is : the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected : cohen guest is the only option... While I agree with that conclusion, the answer to your opening question was in RBW's post: :> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right :> after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are :> kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning... They sold the aliyah on the presumption that, as usual. And in fact, this "chazaqah" is so solid, RBS asked this eventually as a hypothetical; the wording he thought of was "were ... to come" not "when ... does come". Perhaps there was originally an al-tenai that simply people no longer remember. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:46:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818174604.GH5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:52:59PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha : minyanim questioned my saying "y'yasheir kochacha" to one of the olim ... : A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) : dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "Shalom aleichem", like M'gilas Rus' "H' : imachem // y'varechcha H'", is also a blessing, but the "problem" comes : up when it's utilized as a greeting. My rule: If said as a social pleasantry, or as a mindless playback of a recording your parents / society taught you, it's a greeting. But if you care more about whether the RBSO heard you than the person you're saying it about, it's a berakhah. And usually it's somewhere between those poles. With a skew toward the greeing end. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:02:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:02:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A : single woman is allowed to get IVF. I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei mi shelo nivra". But... This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless worse than never existing at all? (I adapted that line from arguments about aborting a fetus that tests positive for Downs. How many people with Downs hate their life so much that they regret existing?) : Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Marriage as described in Bereishis 1, perhaps. "Peru urevu umil'u es ha'aetz". But the intimacy of Bereishis 2 is not adressed "... al kein ya'azov ish es aviv ve'es imo, vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu lebasar echad". My version of "the talk" with my boys started with these two pesuqim. Explaining that relations are to serve these two functions. And also, while birth control can address one of these two, extramarital relations outside of "vedavaq be'isho" translate into exercises in weakening that bond, that gift HQBH gave us. (Adding now, as this bit would go over their heads: to approximate Adam Qadmon as humanity is described before Adam and Chavah are made from one into two.) And then, after establishing theological context, the talk continued on the usual biological and psychological planes. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 11:27:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses in Judaism Message-ID: R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/ He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American Eclipse of 2017: Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 14:10:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: . On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients. I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. > ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient > with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the > well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov > yisroel", just like many people today. And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then what did they do wrong? The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good description of it, I'd appreciate it.) The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food that even went by another name. And the very first time that they asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained. In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product. Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I wrote here 15 years ago: (http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03) > Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free > breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored > liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I > understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that > assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that > one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff, > and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap > orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice, > isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 11:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:29:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> References: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <529972d5-f946-74d5-e97e-26fbf8cbced3@starways.net> On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural > : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any > : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a > : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A > : single woman is allowed to get IVF. > > I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei > mi shelo nivra". But... I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view. > This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless > worse than never existing at all? Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 17:30:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:30:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, Cheilev and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. Is this correct? Can anyone offer some illumination? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 21:43:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4577e69b-191e-24b3-90cc-757555b83cd6@sero.name> On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... > Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I > don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at their lodgings. Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream? A grocery. >> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient >> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the >> well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov >> yisroel", just like many people today. > And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then > what did they do wrong? This is precisely the AhS's point. He strongly rejects the view of those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens when one does so. > > The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are > "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". > (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good > description of it, I'd appreciate it.) It's schmant in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet cream for coffee. Cf smetana, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour cream is zoyer shmetene. > The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to > what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food technology made everything complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel. (This is why the term "cholov stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used. RMF rejects the idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils its requirements.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 07:17:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: ' R' Zev Sero wrote: > No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type > of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in > Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least > one could before modern food technology made everything > complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to > *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, > etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. Summary: I concede. Longer version: I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as a resident of the 5700s. I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned about such things. I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the, there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly, there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them. There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in 1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the drivers for this change. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 12:04:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:04:07 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: <201708201904.v7KJ47OS022554@hsdm.com> >And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") . From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 22:11:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 01:11:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. > So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, > Cheilev > and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly > think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev. I don't know whether deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something that is identical to chelev so there is no question. (The difference may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone will think it's chelev? Obviously we don't worry about that because an observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to that conclusion?) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 08:37:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk Message-ID: . Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, but we don't hold like him. In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking, eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di" come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds. Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a - <<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds, who don't have mother's milk. >>> Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says it's d'rabanan. We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav", WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di" would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we learn from the word "imo"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 06:32:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse Message-ID: <1503322352892.87303@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 15:09:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis Message-ID: . Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads: > Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so > which bracha should be said? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for > which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the > acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and > great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. > It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. > Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe- > inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? > > Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and > Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh > Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which > are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states > that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's > sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many > commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. > As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses > are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. > > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of anyone else who comments on this question? Thanks! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 16:06:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses : > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah : > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). : : Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of : anyone else who comments on this question? The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses. The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human sin. Wholesale, not retail. The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer to the question in his words. The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who continue ignoring such signs. In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence". At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who aren't religiously moved by it. Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally used language of Wisdom and Intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 17:07:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> References: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b@sero.name> > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer > to the question in his words. That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's servant, the moon. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 04:11:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? Message-ID: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Something doesn?t add up. Every 28 years around April 8th, we recite the birkat hachama (last time, April 8th 2009, next time, April 8th 20037). Every month we recite the blessing over the moon. And as I learned, the ?oseh ma?aseh b?reshis? is over lightening but not over thunder and volcanoes. For thunder and volcanoes I thought we say ?shekocho g?vuroso malei olam.? Regarding an eclipse as an incredible and awe inspiring event, so is being in the presence of a child being born or in the presence of a person having being declared dead, resuscitated back to life. Is there a b?rocho for that? > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 07:16:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170822141651.LBEF22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> I heard a very interesting shiur at yutorah. Everything below was mentioned, plus one other thing: a great explanation of a gemara (or another Chazal) that says something like: "X" comes into the world (X might have been eclipses, or, if not, something related in some way) with four reasons: - not appropriately euglogizing an av beis din - (I can't remember) - homosexuality - the death of two brothers at once (or in battle) (He started the connection my explaining the ma'aseh of the moon's complaint against H' at creation . . . ) Here's the problem with my post: - I got to it via the "featured shiruim" on my YUTorah phone app -- and it's not there now. I went to the desktop site, and I can't seem to find it - I don't remember who it was (except that the rav who gave it over had a middle or eastern European accent) (My excuse: I went to western South Carolina to see the eclipse. The 8 hour drive home turned into almost 13 hours because of traffic, and I drove alone. I heard a lot of shiurim and my mind is pretty fuzzy . . . ) FWIW, -- Sholom At 05:40 AM 8/22/2017, via Avodah wrote: >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 >From: Zev Sero via Avodah >To: Avodah >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis >Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b at sero.name> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't > see an answer > > to the question in his words. > >That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points >out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that >eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or >moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means >that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens >is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or >mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, >even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise >and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when >Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. > >This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural >phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but >Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind >Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. > >This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry >at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them >and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't >they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it >removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun >is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's >servant, the moon. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 17:47:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:47:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness Message-ID: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> There was a discussion on Areivim about a particular person who was accused of committing a particularly evil crime. Someone posted, among other comments, ?I will add that the "rabbi" who committed these horrific acts is objectively G-dless. Apikores is too mild a term for him.? My response to this fits more for Avodah than Areivim: I know this man and most of the other players in this story. And while I haven?t interviewed him recently to test R?n TK?s assertion, it is my opinion that as reprehensible as these events are, it doesn?t mean that the person who committed them is Godless. Is any sinner Godless? More likely, a sinner like this carries around a huge measure of denial and/or conflict. But that doesn?t make him or her Godless. The Gemara says, in fact, that some sinners ? during the moment they?re sinning(!) are close to Hashem (Berachos 63a). I?ll elaborate: In truth, the argument can be made that any time a person sins he or she is Godless. Tomer Devorah in the first perek makes the contrapositive point ? that Shuras HaDin would dictate that Hashem remove himself from a person at the time of his sin, resulting in the sinner?s instant death. His response to that is that Hashem?s mercy is what keeps the person alive ? Hashem does not remove himself from the person, and keeps sustaining him or her even while he or she is sinning with the very power invested by Hashem in them that enables them to sin. But probably most times well-meaning people sin, their sin comes from one of the following three: ignorance, negligence, or lust. Ignorance: Not knowing or remembering something is forbidden. Negligence: Not caring enough to take care not to inadvertently sin. Lust: Being blinded to the evil that one is doing because of the strong desire to benefit from it. In all those cases, the person who is sinning is not thinking about Hashem. He?s ? in your terms ? ?objectively Godless.? But can he really be called that? Let?s talk about two extremes: The person who walks in front of another person who is saying Shemoneh Esrei (relatively minor), vs. the person who is not shomer negiah (relatively major). In both those cases it?s not that the person is not thinking about Hashem (which he admittedly is not), but that the person is not thinking about sin. Or, more succinctly, the person is just not thinking. Not Godless, but thought-less. And that can sum up all of the three categories ? ignorance, negligence, and lust cause people to sin by not thinking. So what happens when a person is a thinker? There are two possibilities. The person can be like Nimrod, "???? ????? ??????? ????? ??" ? he knows Hashem and doesn?t listen to him, although he recognized Hashem?s existence. That?s a plain old Rasha. But he?s not Godless ? ???? ?????. The second possibility is that that person does think about Hashem. He does think about his actions. He does know how bad it is what he?s doing. In other areas, not his weakness, he does keep to Hashem?s will. He is ???? ????? but he?s not ?????? ????? ??. Such a person, I think, is incredibly conflicted. He knows about Hashem and he?s rebelling against him on the one hand, while trying to obey him on the other. That person might be evil, might be scum of the earth, but he?s not Godless. On the contrary. And although we have to condemn such a person and his horrible actions, and we don?t envy his punishment in the World to Come, we might also be a little jealous of his relationship with Hashem. This may well be the reason the Gemara tells us that a person who says Lashon Hara about a talmid chacham falls in Gehennom, since the talmid chacham definitely did Teshuvah (Berachos 19a). How do we know he definitely did teshuvah? Because a talmid chacham, by definition, is a thinker. He didn?t indulge in non-thinking ? that?s not in his nature. And even if he had a moment of weakness and did something wrong, he certainly rebounded and regretted it the next day. (Contrast the talmid chacham with the non-thinker of before ? he just continues blissfully on with his life not realizing or caring that he sinned. That?s why we are not required to presume that he did Teshuvah.) A Godless person, properly defined, is one who denies Hashem?s existence completely. We have no basis, in this case or in many others, to assert that those are the circumstances we?re dealing with. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 23:43:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 06:43:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? On the topic Kvct Joel Rich Sent from my iPhone THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 21:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:06 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: It seems we agree that there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you are, eating what looks for all intents and purposes, to be Cheilev Yet Chazal were not Gozer to prohibit this due to Maris Ayin. Is the physical difference between Cheilev and Shuman more than the difference between fish blood and animal blood? Would there be no confusion between red coloured liquids, like wine and animal blood? There is no MA on Ben PeKuAh that is salvaged as a non-fully-gestated, no matter how long it lives and no matter how much it looks smells tastes and feels like an ordinary beast. Why is that so? Proposing that - IT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO CHEILEV SO THERE IS NO QUESTION - seems a little fantastic And indeed we should ask - why don't we worry that onlookers will think that beef Shuman is Cheilev? Is it OBVIOUS that there is no reason to suspect it is Cheilev, so why jump to that conclusion? I do not think so. I suspect that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies is as a product similar to the prohibited product. Perhaps like the position that Min BeMino is determined by name not by taste, Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 04:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Since when? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 07:09:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> References: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170823140919.GB32207@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:28AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: :> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat : Since when? Tangent: One of my pet peeves about Brisker derekh is how "chalos sheim" often is just begging the question. X needs a P, or else it doesn't really have the chalos sheim X. It's an empty statement, just saying that P is needed because the category needs P. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:13:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:13:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tax Evasion and Esrog purchasing In-Reply-To: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> References: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170825191326.GA15871@aishdas.org> Back in Sep 2014 Every year I mention the problem of buying an esrog from someone who > offers a better price if you pay in cash. Last year I was able to shift > from "li nir'eh it's a problem". RHSchachter reports that according to > RJBSoloveitchik, helping the seller evade taxes in this way is lifnei iver > (deOraisa, not "just" the derabbanan of mesayeia) and THE ESROG IS PASUL. They just put R' Asher Weiss's teshuvah on this subject up at : Tvunah in English Question: I recently went to a store and was told if a pay in cash then i would not need to pay taxes. If it is obvious that by me paying in taxes the store owner would not pay the proper tax on this sale to the government, am I allowed to do such a purchase or there is a problem of [lifnei iveir lo sisein mikhshol]. Answer: This would not seem to be the actual prohibition of Lifnei Iver as cash payment is inherently permissible and he can and may still pay taxes. There are a number of reasons a person would prefer cash payments, aside from tax evasion. At the same time, with regards to taxes we should generally assume Dina Demalchusa Dina and not encourage or promote tax evasion. It would seem RAW agrees on the halakhah, but disagrees that you should be chosheish that the preference for cash is due to tax evasion. Although in the first sentence the sho'el says the salesman told him so outright!? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:29:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:29:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Eilu va'Eilu Message-ID: <20170825192948.GA17720@aishdas.org> Because how can I /not/ share something on eilu va'eilu? -micha ----- Forwarded message from torahweb at torahweb.org ----- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:31:45 -0400 From: torahweb at torahweb.org Subject: updates to Rav Schachter's dvar Torah To: weeklydt at torahweb.org TorahWeb EILU V'EILU Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim -- both opinions are the words of the Living G-d." although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she'ha'Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She'b'al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah. The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether -- according to their perspective -- the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim." This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions imply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v'eilu. Even when we do apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" it does not mean that halacha l'ma'aseh one has the right to follow either opinion. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v'eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, "Beis Shamai b'makom Beis Hille eina Mishna", i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don't even consider the views of Beis Shamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d'hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b'chutz la'aretzm, even when dealing with a d'oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l'hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l'ma'aseh. (See my sefer, B'Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.) Likewise the poskim assume that when you have a shitah y'chida'ah, a lone opinion among poskim not shared by others, this view also does not constitute a slight safeik. The Beis Shmuel (Shulchan Aruch, Even HoEzer siman 90, s'if kattan 6) thinks that even if the Rambam agrees with the Ri Migash on an position not agreed upon by other poskim, this view should be totally ignored, since the Rambam was so taken by the genius of the Ri Migash (his father's rebbe), and would naturally be inclined to accept his opinion without even thinking twice (even though in several instances the Rambam does reject his opinion), this psak would be considered a shitah y'chida'ah and should be totally ignored. It was recently reported that a certain "beis din" permitted a married woman to remarry without a get, because it was ascertained that her husband was not Sabbath observant at the time he married her, and the halacha considers one who is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia to be like a non-Jew. And, they reasoned, we all know that if a non-Jew marries a Jewish woman the marriage does not take effect. This ruling is absolutely scandalous. First of all, the consensus of recent poskim has been that the concept of mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia doesn't apply today since so many Jews are not shomer Shabbos and the term "b'farhesia" has the connotation that this individual is breaking the discipline in the community (Chazon Ish and Binyan Tzion.) The members of this "beis din" would most certainly have been the first to say that such a Jew would not cause wine he touched to become prohibited because he is not considered to be like a non-Jew. More importantly, the view that a Jew who is treated as a non-Jew because he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia can't effectively marry a Jewish woman is totally ignored, because it is against an explicit gemara (Yevamos 47b) that states that even if a Jew converts to another religion and marries a Jewish woman the marriage does in fact take effect. We can't apply the concept of eilu v'eilu to this view; it is simply incorrect. Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v'eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v'eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does notmean that it has ramifications halacha l'ma'aseh. There are rules and regulations regarding psak halacha; this discipline is not hefker (is not a free for all.) The parsha tells us that the halachic positions of the Beis Din Hagadol are binding on all Jews. The Sanhedrin was a group of Torah scholars who were clearly head and shoulders above all of their contemporaries. They were the gedolei hador (the Torah giants of their generation), and the gedolei hador have the status of rabo muvhak for their entire generation, even for those who never even met them (see Tosafos on Berachos 31b and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 244:10.) The halachic positions of one's rebbe muvhak are binding on him, and the halachic views of the gedolei hador (who are clearly head and shoulders above the other Torah scholars of their generation) may not be ignored. None of the members of the aforementioned "beis din" are recognized by anyone as belonging to the category of gedolei hador, and even if it had been a case where we would apply eilu v'eilu, since the gedolei hador have unanimously rejected it for generations, no one today who is not in the category of gedolei hador has the right to go against this rejection! Rabbinic leaders throughout the generations are always concerned with the plight of agunos, but coming up with non-halachic solutions is not the Orthodox way. The Talmud Yerushalmi seems to hold that the concept of pikuach nefesh doesn't only apply when one's life is in danger, but also if one's life will be made extremely miserable this too falls under the category of pikuach nefesh, which allows one to violate Torah laws. The Yerushalmi (quoted by Rav Yosef Engle in Teshuvas Aguna) says that we would have allowed every agunah to violate the prohibition of adultery if not for the fact that we are dealing with gilui arayos (forbidden marriages) where the halacha does not permit one to violate the mitzvah even in a case of literal pikuach nefesh -- even to save one's life. The aforementioned "beis din" is doing a disservice to the Orthodox Jewish community at large, and specifically to these poor agunos, by misleading them with absolutely scandalously fallacious piskei halacha. Let the public beware! One must be of the caliber of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski in his generation or Rav Moshe Feinstein in the past generation in order to determine in a given case if the halacha permits a woman to get remarried without a get. POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the aforementioned "beis din", also see important letter from Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz regarding the "International Beit Din" . Copyright (c) 2017 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 09:42:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Poem For Elul Message-ID: <20170827164248.GA14698@aishdas.org> Saw on Facebook and wanted to share. I am not sure if R Bin Goldman intended the title to be "a poem for elul" (sic) and the first line read (in Hebrew, my transliteration) "Lekha Amar Libi" or if he wrote a poem titled "Lekha Amar Libi, which he introduced as a poem for Elul. I am presenting it as if the latter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Lekha Amar Libi [R'] Bin Goldman My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:18:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach Message-ID: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)? If not, where is its force grounded? Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own law as long as it doesn?t contradict the seven? Who would be eligible to be on a Bnai Noach court and how much interpretive independence would they have? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:19:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Moshe and aharon Message-ID: <846178C1-4E50-4DC0-9C2B-7D9B22F0E745@sibson.com> Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b ) two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to debate] Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse Kt Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 18:53:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:10 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... Message-ID: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin presented in an earlier message. The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product. Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting - please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when? Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera, see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its - Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues] R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. Would you please explain how and/or why? = = = = = = Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are 3 issues that require clarification: 1. Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protests? Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: 1. Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. 2. Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:34:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8326ab8f-6f6d-4868-0fd3-9a28f508abd0@sero.name> On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. > Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the important) distinction. I don't know how similar they look on the surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with different names even in English. > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Once again, I object. Who says so? > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be > performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to > the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 07:20:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828142031.GA10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin : presented in an earlier message. : The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis. As in: : R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the : application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. : Would you please explain how and/or why? This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an observer. See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur, not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half of the label on the "almond milk". But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat? Tangent: : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk... WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats and the milk were cooked together. As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar. After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to wait to eat. The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's. (My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?) Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs. But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked them together? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:06:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (MorrisIsaacson via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog Message-ID: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) Thank you, Moshe Isaacson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:20:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the : sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk : that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that : milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us : that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would : have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would : have been protected from those other ingredients... This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out something else... According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is that of kosher species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of the milking. Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched by a Yisrael. Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly, neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy more than chazal's taqanah. For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's ruling exempting powdered milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent > adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still > applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched > by a Yisrael. > > Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 10:52:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa : lechumra. Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines right above your comment. (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about without the gezeira. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:52:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828155218.GC10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote: : Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated : with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't resplond when you asked on another forum.) Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid. The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and Tzefaniah 2:14. But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol to it. The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll", because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French. Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would share that metaphor. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. > > : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash > : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa > : lechumra. > Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal > visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing > "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. > So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines > right above your comment. He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah. And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5fe6203e-5ca3-2df7-9dc4-ab23193ca9e8@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF > held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus > inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping kashrus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:18:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:18:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have : done. I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:50:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7a7271fd-d51c-6efc-2eb8-8d88dc02bf52@sero.name> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose > : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need > : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have > : done. > > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further supervision is needed. I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care about reshus. What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his employees or guests. The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours from the bottle into his cup. And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. So what makes it CY? This can be further split into two scenarios: (1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision. It was CY lim'hadrin from the moment of milking until this nochri bought it. But now it isn't. (2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at one point it was already in reshus yisroel. In other words, there was more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from the bottle. Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus nochri? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 15:07:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? In-Reply-To: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> References: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170828220709.GH31841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the : bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') : is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, : an eclipse is not included in this list... The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of an eclipse is for others, not Jews. BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah? Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said? I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im (mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see Creation in it but can't. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 13:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828202847.GG31841@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature : calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow : and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as : Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. ... : But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar : and non-Tzon, this non-animal? : Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence : my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You went over my head. I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73. So what are you asking? ... : Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, : the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even : if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur : will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and CAN be chal on it. As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type fatty deposits? Where this question is coming from: My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of a chayah is permissible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 17:25:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:25:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances Message-ID: Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis. He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined by the names we use to identify things. But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as far as I can tell, has not been addressed. Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the facts of the Halacha. I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by. We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino, is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste? Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop - stop trying to force the round peg. I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined. = = = = = Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked with milk from the Pesikta he quotes. Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, it must still be Halachically coherent. Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats. - - - - - Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained why there is no MA to cook these with dairy. He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different names even in English. Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are. Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi. Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim, take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is explaining. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:10:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:10:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? Message-ID: The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The answer is Yes and also No There is an Issur to eat Neveila but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat - RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2 Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah. Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by the Gemara, Chullin 58a. A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar, a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo. After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before being incubated] from unfertilised eggs. Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif]. Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it. What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision must be made, which is ZVZGo. BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa. Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher chickens when they hatch. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 16:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh Message-ID: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds." Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 19:54:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which conclusions may be drawn. > Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when > HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until > they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection > and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was permitted to them. But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 05:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it (and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead) However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers. They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish. Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container with CS. How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)? (they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 08:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ab46d6f-e25f-3389-5dea-28aabefa26c1@sero.name> On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they > are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were > growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the > eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] Then why not say the same of the hen's meat? It too was mostly grown before it became a tereifah! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 12:52:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh In-Reply-To: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> References: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170829195223.GA27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, : assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? : Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as : Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in : Hebrew. TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error tragic; I wonder if it's common. I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers: Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds... until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud. Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad. The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados". The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 13:32:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170829203231.GB27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold : that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the : status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan : according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their : keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the : absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all : kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his : descendants! Not to mention all benei Racheil. Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before we were true Benei Yisrael. Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a "nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah. Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other. Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as an issur chamur. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 30 12:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:48:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments Message-ID: A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933: As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . (Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues) We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address. It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure way of life that would bring us to God's light. The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps. Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split. A couple of notes: 1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause. 2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other personal sin), he had this in mind. 3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely within the Clal doing the sin. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 06:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 07:44:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it > sounds like "original sin." YL And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:35:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170831233516.GB22179@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me :> it sounds like "original sin." YL : : Did you think only Xians beleived : in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our : view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the : guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"... The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach. Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos, all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin. Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 12:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America Message-ID: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus see there for more background: On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land... On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein... REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US. Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6: Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them, they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness, not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished, as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia. Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain, without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with our very eyes ... This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel] was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150 years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather, that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times. (Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America being a "medinah shel chessed.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:43:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have several comments. The OU writes: > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > the home for Shabbos. Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs of the home." In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting the lights is part of that! The OU continues: > The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. > Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to > sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama), > women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to > me it sounds like "original sin." I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I think that's all the Tur is saying. It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive from the same event. Finally, the OU writes: > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > the wicks will easily catch fire. It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be *more* difficult to light later on. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 18:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:57:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh Message-ID: NEVEILAH Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the prohibition to eat Neveilah It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2 However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah. I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by Halacha so why is it Assur to eat it? MARIS AYIN The following are universally accepted 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha and even Minhag 2] AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta] 3] AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA? I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal. and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats, even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA. The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah - Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not. Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has no direct Halachic component to it Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a reflection of Halacha. Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden. Please provide some sources. As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is also predicated upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim. As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish? ISSUR BBCh I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor - only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook. The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out - the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:06:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:06:02 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a little bit will do] That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However, for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen. The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:00:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb'al peh Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression > that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may > disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no > one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within > the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from > Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions > made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that > seem problematic to our minds." > > Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, > assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not > so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies > as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent > in Hebrew. I could respond in any of several ways. Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial. I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash, until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that Nach is also included.) Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural sources, and with hardly any logical arguments. Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin: What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his stereotypes about mishnayos.) This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion, and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our practice is XYZ. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 22:23:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? Ben On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system > of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to > see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or > murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow > one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and > speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 06:49:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org>, <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. Kvct Joel rich > On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? > > Ben > >> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system >> of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to >> see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or >> murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow >> one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and >> speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkampgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:45:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based ideology. But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses. I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate, interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need. So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:58:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ > Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas > haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's > because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something. Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive, and they recognized this. The implications for today are self-evident. As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the Zionists actively fought against religious practice. -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:11:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote: : That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I : don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:19:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:19:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict so many murderers. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:27:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901152729.GI31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so : that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power : and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, : false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why : we continue to remember Amalek. R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8) RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can can pass as soon as we stop being a threat. Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as chinam. So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah. This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on what they did, and not let it Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't, why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred we feel once we realize they hate us back. The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how to address sin'as chinam. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:27:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only > superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any > other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't > mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it > became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly > damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:08:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:08:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias" and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell "Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote: : As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign : names? As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations. The use of : aleph and ayin always makes things interesting. The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE 126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them. It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.) My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud. There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef; patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud. On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued: :> The very point I was trying to make is that yes, : I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an : English word into Hebrew. : If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1 : spelling. Especially for more complicated names. As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)... There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others. I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself. The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide English sounds among the established transliterations. "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the "j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and an English "ch". The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or "Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's where I could see debate. Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only said by some who know her? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:59:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4318c19f-0790-10f1-6bab-106d72e8dd9b@sero.name> On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/ thing for the "j". The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi teshuvot discuss it. IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it was spelt gimel yud. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:34:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:34:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The role of gematria, and remez in general In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <488600f7-ef1c-3adb-b551-f3c00f739ff9@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170901163421.GC28962@aishdas.org> >From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria itself reached Avodah topicality. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim: > True. But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li > pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see > how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that. > R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other > opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not > one of them methods used to darshan Torah. And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:" : Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves : use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah... What is the role of Remez? We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh -- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.) Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat in the pasuq. And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod". But remez? What's it for? It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f004425-548e-142a-90de-48c5e91769b8@sero.name> On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. [Email #2] On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:24:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901172407.GB14196@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means : they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which would either mean: 1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency. Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't try to fix what you can? 2- They felt they were insufficient in skill. Or a third or fourth possibility. I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death. Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment. And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9, the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death. He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then. R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin" which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time getting permission to execute someone than they did. But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi wrong. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:52:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote: > > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > > the home for Shabbos. > >Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. >The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was >"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a >level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why >this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, >because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs >of the home." > >In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting >the lights is part of that! Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) >Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be >in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do >something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I >think that's all the Tur is saying. You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness, >Finally, the OU writes: > > > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > > the wicks will easily catch fire. > >It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully >understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain >piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and >difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a >charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. >In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be >counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be >*more* difficult to light later on. Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:32:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:32:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412cee4b-73a8-f3ae-bd8f-d8051cb68646@sero.name> On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually > oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:03:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, from Jewish breakaway groups). Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). Another (lesser known one): the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha. (IIRC, the S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.) My question is this: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and something comparable in secular life. Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from some other group/idealogy? (E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of it's Nazi association. But I'm looking for a better and more relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't a common design anyway)). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:07:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we : are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some : sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and : something comparable in secular life. Something so direct, it's not even an analogy. Jewish: Yichud. Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the opposite gender. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:17:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> >The following are universally accepted >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all >Halacha and even Minhag Is this the case? According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm , the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos). He also mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613. (As they each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) ) So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? (In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or so. So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did the general opinion change? Or did it?) -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 02:39:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:39:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath Message-ID: Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel during their Shabbath? Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, text (SMS) or WhatsApp? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 12:09:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality.? So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 03:38:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 06:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . I wrote: > In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then > lighting the lights is part of that! and R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of > homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? > ... > Given that roles today are much different than they were in > the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles > should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I > am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive. I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For example, if non-family are present, some might consider this non-tzniyus. But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other. > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which > are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights > with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is > no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem > with Shabbos neiros? As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that does not apply to Chanukah. My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 04:08:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: . R' Sholom Simon asked: > Can anybody think of a secular (ideally, American) law or > common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish > ourselves from some other group/idealogy? R' Micha Berger's response of yichud is a great example of where secular society has grasped the importance of gezeros which help protect us from ourselves. Similarly, secular society understands the concept of Mar'is Ayin and Chashad, and they express this in the term "Appearance of impropriety". (There's even a short Wikipedia page with that title.) But I don't think either of these is what RSS was asking for. He wants examples where the purpose is specifically: > in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, > from Jewish breakaway groups). > > Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos > (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). The answer that first came to my mind is that the original American colonists adopted various practices to distinguish themselves from their European origins. I'm sure there were others, but the main one that comes to my mind is the spelling differences between British and American English. For example, the Wikipedia article "Comparison of American and British English" says: "One particular contribution towards formalizing these differences came from Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionary (published 1828) with the intention of showing that people in the United States spoke a different dialect from Britain, much like a regional accent." Akiva Miller PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, where we are uneqivocally supposed to do it one way, but the other way is grudgingly acceptable after the fact. (Speeding limits are *not* a good example of this. The policeman will probably not stop you for going slightly over the limit, but he certainly could. That would be a Chetzi Shiur at most - a clear violation, even if not a punishable one.) If anyone has good examples, please start a new thread. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 06:07 PM 9/1/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >Jewish: Yichud. >Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy >about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the >opposite gender. Thanks -- but I'm looking more for something that is intended to separate us (us "regular Americans" -- whatever that is) from a people or nation or ideology that we find distasteful. An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). I'm looking for a law or practice that *separates/distinguishes" (havdil) - your example is more like a "fence." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest example I can think of is not secular. Mennonite (including Amish) men shave their moustaches to express their rejection of all things military, because when their customs were formed soldiers wore moustaches. > PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that > is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, There's the principle "de mimimis non curat lex", but that's more like chatzi shiur, which civil law considers mutar lechatchila. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:15:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <657b8edc-97f8-5fa2-45c9-7efe94200b60@sero.name> On 02/09/17 05:39, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel > during their Shabbath? > > Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, > text (SMS) or WhatsApp? If you know they won't break shabbos to read it, or at least you don't know they will break shabbos to read it, then I don't see a problem. "Ee ata metzuveh al shevisas keilim". It's not shabbos for you; it is shabbos for the remote instrument that you are manipulating, but that is not a problem. The same would apply to operating a waldo that's in a place where it's shabbos; it's shevisas keilim, which BH says is not a thing. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:28:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: <12a7adb9-e48c-7af7-3fb2-7ee96c2a3799@sero.name> On 02/09/17 15:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue > here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a > reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and > Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but > it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand > that we live in this reality. But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:51:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:51:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (1:4) writes: "When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel ... They would come to the Beis Din at the entrance to the Azara. If they knew [the din] they would tell them, if not everyone went into the Beis Din and asked. ... If the matter was not clear to the Beis Din they would discuss the issue until all agreed or they they would take a vote and follow the majority and tell the petitioners this is the halacha" The Rambam is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 88 which states the following: "At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Beis Din Hagadol. The Beis Din Hagadol was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah). If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide. After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai)." There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the Tannaim, the Gemara in fact related that they left their place in the Lishkas ha'Gazis 40 years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. If so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol in existence? 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:23:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: , <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: From: Sholom Simon Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:17 PM > The following are universally accepted > 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha > and even Minhag > Is this the case? ... > So... what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone > accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? As in many things, the Rambam seems not to have been noticed. This is distressing, because the Rambam tries to present things according to halokho, not according to medrash. As he says in his introduction to the Tenth Pereq of Sanhedrin in Perush haMishnayot, medrash is almost never to be taken literally, but rather comes to teach us things (but says that most Jews don't understand that). For halakhic purposes, the Rambam explains in Hil. M'lakhim 9:1, that Adam haRishon observed 6 things that he was commanded. One was added after the Mabbul, so yielding 7 mitzvos that Noah and his descendents were commanded to observe. Avraham Avinu was also commanded concerning Milah, and he took upon himself the obligation to daven Shacharit. Yitzchak added another two, and Ya'aqov another two. When rabbis say that Avraham observed all 613 Mitvot, it is obviously not meant literally: many, many of the 613 only came into force after King Shlomo built the BhM. Before that, there were a whole set of other mitzvot (such as that the Kohanim and only the Kohanim wereto take apart and assemble the Mishkan, and that the L'viyim and only the L'viyim were to carry the parts of the Mishkan). These were commandments from HQBH, but not part of the set of 613. When the BhM was built, those mitzvot disappeared and new mitzvot, which are part of the 613 count, came into effect. So before that no one "observed" the 613. And some of the 613 are only applicable to Kohanim, and some only to L'viyim, and some only to Yisra'elim, so there was no person ever who observed or could observe all 613 mitzvot. So when we say nowadays that Jews are commanded to observe 613 mitzvot it does not mean that any person is commanded to observe all 613; it means that there exist 613 mitzvot. Every Jew is commanded to learn all 613, however. So it is possible that the Avot learned all 613. But most of them were not technically mitzvot then, because they were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and before that no one was commanded to do them. So what does the Torah mean when it says that Avraham observed "mishmarti, mitzvotai,chuqqotai v'torotai" (sic, not "toratei) in Chapter 26? The same thing that it means in 18:19 "for I know him, that he will command his children and his house after him to obeserve the way of the Lord." There is no question that Avraham Avinu was ALSO commanded to observe what Chazal include in the term "Derekh Eretz" and the Rambam explicates in Hil. De'ot Pereq 6, which included such basic things as proper behavior and middot (and one of the main goals of the Aishdas organization, and nowadays is called "mussar"). Chazal say that all of those things have to come before Torah, i.e. before learning rest of the Torah. And, as Micha the founder of Aishdas can tell you better than anyone, there are so many, many things that one has to learn and focus on to observe these most basic of the commandments. So Avraham would have had his hands full teaching people those. Did he also learn all the mitzvot that would be given later? He was a novi, and so perhaps could, but one cannot say that he "observed" them in the literal sense, because how could one "observe" a law that had not yet been instituted and was not even applicable? Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 17:39:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when : American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. : (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their national ethnicity. I think this topic has become non-PC. Nationalism is even a dirty word in some circles; viewed as faschism, or fascism-lite. You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without running afoul of rules about discussing politics? But I hope that at least relating the two topics will provide something to think about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 10:58:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel > and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the > Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din > Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority and passed their 18 gezeros. The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the period of the zugos. Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 12:44:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:44:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > >> 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel >> and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the >> Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din >> Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. >> > > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority > and passed their 18 gezeros. That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. > The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. > Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the > period of the zugos. Yes that is exactly the question. Why didn't they resolve all of the Machlokes in the Mishnayos. > Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the > other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. Wouldn't that violate the issur of lo tasuguru mipnei ish? > > > -- > Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, > zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 18:14:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7333f45e-37cb-8ad0-ca8f-bffbb68048f8@gmail.com> Sun, 3 Sep 2017 Marty Bluke asked: > ...The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the > Tannaim... > so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence > there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students > had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol > in existence? > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and > Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? > Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for > most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. By '''in existence,'' the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The English-language Jewish history books that have been published over the past few decades follow this model. I have also done so in ''The Dynamics of Dispute,'' (Judaica Press) Chapter 10, ''The Control and Proliferation of Machlokess, Keeping the Torah One.'' Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 01:59:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:59:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:01:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> On 05/09/17 04:59, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both > David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never > attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females must be killed as well. Your question of how Agag's descendants, conceived the night before he was killed, managed to become so numerous so quickly applies here too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:17:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? Message-ID: According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. However, others disagree. Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/yblaj8cu If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:49:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:49:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it > into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? > Greek changed a lot over the centuries. I'm not sure if it even existed as a language at the time of Joshua, and the Greek alphabet was certainly much later. If Greek was the one of the languages the Torah was translated into then it would probably have been unrecognizable in the Hellenistic period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 09:17:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> On 05/09/17 11:17, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate > it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? 1. Ptolemy, not Alexander. 2. 72 sages, not 70. 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) exist today? 4. Even if the writing did still exist, would whatever passed for Greek in 1271 BCE have been intelligible in 271 BCE? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:36:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:36:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/5/2017 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. > However, others disagree. ... > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 > languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages > to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek > translation? Well, for one thing, it was Ptolemy, rather than Alexander. But for another, maybe it wasn't necessary. Perhaps if they'd simply asked for the authoritative Greek translation, they'd have gotten it, and any number of distortions of the Torah caused by the Septuagint wouldn't have happened. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:20:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> References: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170905182040.GB2253@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:17:10PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the : writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure : to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) : exist today? Rishonim on Yehoshua also argue how many such monuments there were. For example Rashi (at least as explained in Gur Aryeih) has three copies: one in the Yaedrin, one on the mizbeiach on Har Eivel (which is named in Devarim) and one at Gilgal. AND there is a machloqes tanna'im (Sotah 35b) about how they were written. But I think both shitos hold they were engraced. R' Shimon says that the stones were plastered, and then the words were engraved into the plaster. R' Yehudah held the stones were engraved, and then plastered on top of them. R' Yehudah's position sounds like it's describing more permanent writing, but how would you get to see it? You would not only need to peel off the plaster, the plaster could well get into the engraved letters. To address the original question: Ezra haSofer used majority to produce the mesoretic text, leaving us with a sefer that didn't match any of the copies found. Why didn't he check the Hebrew copy/ies from the monunemnt(s)? Wouldn't a text engraved by people who met MRAH be more authoritative than any of them? (All this assuming, as is the post I'm replying to, that they contained the whole Torah. That is the shitah we're trying to understand, no?) So it would seem to me that just as we have no idea how to find this monument / these monuments, even if the writing is still legible, they were already unavailable in Ezra's day. Unsurprising, given how much more pragmatic and used knowledge was lost. And even if they did know where to find it, either the writing wore off the plaster, or perhaps the plaster was too embedded after all those centuries to be picked off to read the stone. Regardless of the shift in Greek, the stones weren't even usable when the target was the original Hebrew. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170905184626.GC2253@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:17:58PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >The following are universally accepted : >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all : >Halacha and even Minhag : : Is this the case? In a footnote to one of his father-in-law's maamarim, RMMS (the LR), writes that this is meant that they did so "beruchnius, velo begashmius": Some mitzvos they "only" fulfilled the point of the mitzvah without physically doing the mitzvah. E.g. tefillin, with its mention of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. Others, they did perform the mitzvah physically, but still they only did so to accomplish the ruchnius -- it was only incidentally physical, and only sometimes in the same form. See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31608&st=&pgnum=137 For example (not given there), the Zohar links Yaaqov's spotted sticks and changing the coats of sheep to the mitzvah of tefillin. But the sticks didn't become qadosh, because uplifting and redeeming the gashmi wasn't part of the plan. There is more in Liqutei Sichos on Lekh Lekha www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/68627/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Lech-Lecha.htm Given RMMS's relationship to shitas Rashi, and our stereotype that chassidus tends to take maximalist positions, I thought this position would be somewhat interesting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 13:30:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:30:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> Message-ID: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females > must be killed as well. How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what the mitzvah and the dinim were? Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently no one informed him. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 20:43:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 05/09/17 16:30, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females >> must be killed as well. > > How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what > the mitzvah and the dinim were? They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 07:45:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:43:20PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe : taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of : "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in : front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never : knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so : angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. BB 21b. I think he concluded said rebbe (Yoav) did it as intentional ziyuf, not an error. R Mordechai Breuer concludes that the semichut (i.e. the "X of Y" form of the word for X) for "zakhar" could follow a variant conjugation and come out "zekher". And while it's hard to picture confusing "z'khar" and "zeikher", "zekher" and "zeikher" is much easier. The "zekher" vs "zeikher" debate over what the Gra had for Parashas Zakhor was over which means the Gra's intent was to tell us the word means "reminder / memorial" rather than "memory". The mesorah is "zeikher". But if zekher could mean both "males of" and "memory of", the mistake is VERY easy. (Not that RMB would worry about the possibility of the Gra disagreeing with the mesoretic niqud.) But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? It's strange. In our culture, it would be the "hot topic" of study for the weeks leading into the war... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 11:48:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > error. No. Why would he do that? The Rishonim discuss whether the rebbe himself didn't know the correct pronunciation, or whether he knew it and therefore taught it corrrectly, but didn't pay enough attention to how each boy was pronouncing it, so never noticed that young Yoav had misheard him and was reading "z'char". > But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 15:51:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an : >error. : No. Why would he do that? A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't get clarification /before/ the war? And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most of the animals? Actually, if you figure the remaining animals were for qorbanos, he was planning on all them being killed. A random reenactment of Yericho? Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 19:12:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> On 06/09/17 18:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > : >error. > > : No. Why would he do that? > > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. I don't understand why you keep bringing David up. What does he have to do with this story? The story is about Yoav, not David. And I repeat my question, why would Yoav's rebbe intentionally corrupt the pasuk? Why would Yoav even suspect him of it? > :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? > > : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. So how does that make Yoav a gadol? > And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? Why would it even occur to him that Yoav had such a misunderstanding? > And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most > of the animals? Do you mean Shaul? Perhaps Yoav didn't know the details of what had happened all those years ago. In fact how many people ever knew about Shmuel's rebuke of Shaul? It may have been secret by the king's order, and not spoken about, so Yoav may never even have heard of it. > Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when > it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Again, Yoav thought he had it right. He didn't even know that there was anything he needed to ask. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 00:02:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi@opengemara.org via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3FF2B345-8199-48FC-A3BD-6A89FC2540F9@opengemara.org> On September 6, 2017 3:51pm PDT, Micha Berger wrote: ... > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. .. >: Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? The Gemara (Bava Basra 21b) says that the issue was "???? ???? ????? ?' ???? [arur oseh melekhes H' remiyah -mb]" -- that the teacher should be more attentive (also, it fits into the Sugya there -- that a teacher who is medayek is better than one who's fast). Also, there's a machlokes in Sanhedrin if Yoav was a good person who made mistakes or if he was evil but found Dovid Hamelech to strong. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 09:45:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:45:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: R' Martin Bluke asked: > 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says > hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash > states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night > and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. > > However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought > Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if > Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David > and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to > wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out Amalek. First the data: * The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters. * The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh * As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's Pelishti stronghold. * Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a problem. So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul. Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans, but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert. So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them, because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites, Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself. Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command. Ad kaan. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 11:15:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Practices of the Tochacha" Message-ID: Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well written and very interesting. http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 12:54:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170907195348.KNNX30763.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: >: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when >: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. >: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). > >Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have >recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken >to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their >national ethnicity. . . . > >You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without >running afoul of rules about discussing politics? Perhaps. Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable with respect to Americans and the American Revolution! Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 14:24:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170907212448.GC15354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? : http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation: All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 15:38:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170907223856.GD15354@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" : d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its : mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? : : Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, : but we don't hold like him. Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4. It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20. ... : We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from : Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus : seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's : significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, : suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later (you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted the gezeira. Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely. : So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev, not so much. I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo" was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo" rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get that conclusion from "sevasheil". And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim lemiqra. But it crashed down. Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 23:55:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> Message-ID: Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks with him the rest of life. Ben On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there > was anything he needed to ask. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 11:55:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 13:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:06:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote: : I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw : it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather : than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," : just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. R Mordechai Breuer On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote: : How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him : what the mitzvah and the dinim were? : Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous : mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know : that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently : no one informed him. And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav was strongly deferential to David. Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the questions as to why. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 14:02:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything > about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a > unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav > was strongly deferential to David. I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. Suppose you're a caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which includes liver. You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, and I agree. You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 9 19:13:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur Message-ID: RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh [but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein Issur Chal Al Issur. So how is it that RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 03:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: > By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' > Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources > that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol > could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and > Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam says? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:18:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to function normally. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:43:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:43:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the > time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to > function normally. And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way. The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin was not functioning normally. [Email #2. -micha] One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 07:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91da4a07-6dcd-bc04-b9e0-38326532931d@sero.name> On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod to both sides. (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 10:02:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : While there may have : been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, : why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam : says? Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin, when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin. (Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.) So, what happened? My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed resolution by higher courts. IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 15:32:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45eac523-5fc8-1a2c-0c9a-256d54c2e054@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700), when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704, while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate, and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards. There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows Beis Hillel. Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become the standard one. All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 20:42:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> Message-ID: <6c5042b2-7703-92b5-e001-b2e5bc111010@zahav.net.il> In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these issues when instructing the soldiers? Ben On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 01:20:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the > one on smicha What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. [Email #2] On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different > conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed > resolution by higher courts. > > IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. > > To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of > valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 06:23:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha" > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. No, they weren't. BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they started in the very last years before it, when things were far from normal functioning. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170911151131.GF24527@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? : Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis : Sheini. But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis. I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a "veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule. The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer. Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq, for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al devarav, for even these greats weren't. So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the best answer to your question. And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to the late amoraim? Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why (leshitas haRambam) the question was still around? : On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. :> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of :> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? : The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white : approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim : "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything : in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying : that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini. (Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's just projecting.) There is a difference between 1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah saying it means the last two are in reversed order; and 2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this idea would be kosher. The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin. And yet, multiple norms would co-exist. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the destruction of Bayit Sheni. Lisa On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis > Sheini. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 07:13:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories Message-ID: <20170911141302.GB24527@aishdas.org> Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav in a different direction. I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the "q" in "Amaleiq".) : I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported : wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher : Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where : we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history. : Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint : in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious : revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of : anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where : the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in : order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal : add a story that isn't needed. : Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or : pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some : of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising, : but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read : historically, I wonder. I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.) Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened" the criteria for such categorization? If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories that defy how the world works. (And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who accept miracles.) In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures. Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid. IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh and av deis din derelict in his duty? The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because they're only ahistoric. I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from within the midrashic-story system. So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..." While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise" far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:54:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty. Rabbi Akiva lived at the > time of the Bar Kochva revolt. R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later. The > vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the > destruction of Bayit Sheni. While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 17:20:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, > Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was > Nasi in Yavneh)" And how many of those feature in any machlokos? Hillel & Shammai had only three, beside the long-running one on smicha. > These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel & Shammai do. Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to dispute? > Hillel and Shammai were certainly > well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their > students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo ra'u". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 18:19:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:19:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 07:02:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? Message-ID: <1505224922640.65779@stevens.edu> Please see the video at http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb produced by the Harabonim of Queens YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 20:16:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:16:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? In-Reply-To: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe > the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were > gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". > Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of > machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the > teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the > lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on! As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one). Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF. * HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim, 1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130 concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora. (All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 08:49:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? Message-ID: <1505317742192.42683@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40) writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until thirteen and a half minutes after sunset. The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 11:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (hankman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:11:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Message-ID: R. Zvi Lampel wrote: ?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help?? CM responds: Yup, I imagine that would be the concordance in his head! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 06:28:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= Message-ID: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 08:54:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:54:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170914155423.GD26813@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av : even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but... Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 09:44:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach In-Reply-To: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> References: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170914164428.GA4289@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is : applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, : might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?.. I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981) count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei. So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod. While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such "tolados". : Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own : law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven? I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of authority is granted. There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of a Noachide court under dinim: The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society. This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10) and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid (Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim 10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim" includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law needs to look like. But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the other 6. This is shitas haRambam (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land. See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 11:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> Message-ID: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min : ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger : (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin was a meat thing in particular. But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the brain. (* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're the consensus, by sheer number.) If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration. It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort to obtain the treif milk. R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:00:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> References: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4636649d-ed8e-bc04-6e80-c299a962507c@sero.name> On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash > et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case > to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. > Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held > like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" > understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, > not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the > brain. You have the PC and CS reversed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1505420943267.43919@stevens.edu> Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170914201537.GB11862@aishdas.org> First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to R Akiva Miller's second post first. On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote: : As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that : takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real : halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the : lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, : but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that : does not apply to Chanukah. I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT) is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function of neis Shabbos. IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation" as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her feel less that she is shouldering the list alone. Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote: : Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. : The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was : "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a : level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why : this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, : because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs : of the home." Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..." But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah kavsah neiro shel olam connection.) The MB too... So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU cites, "only" the nesei keilim. : In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting : the lights is part of that! Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where women can consistently be homemakers..." The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way. BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't know what to make of that. Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular social state? This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book "Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law" https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing, and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes. One paragraph: Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways. The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point: according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations in a range of mitzvot! Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't know): Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal family unit. RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the thesis: Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical, and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single sex. He did not do so. ... Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family, we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids. So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed social structure. RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers, among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular kinds of social structure over others. ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with a husband and wife at the core. ... Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for, community units that comprise family units which comprise individual units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis. A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is so much to say about it. Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield: Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are -- and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 14:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170914210406.GB10180@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote: : There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): : 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the : Tannaim... According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im. According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion) it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over a dechuyah rule). So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and both talmuds. : 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and : Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? To sum up: 1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah. : Why did they let Machlokes fester? ... 2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted, or cannot be taken at face value. a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from the lishkas hagazis. Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post: b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should. And I suggested: c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that distinguishes between them. And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote: : > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won : > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority : > and passed their 18 gezeros. : That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed : group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It : sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either mean - number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5) - number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT sham) So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that would explain why they too got counted. But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 09:28:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:28:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> >From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss : Question: If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition. Answer: He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like an average person, and certainly not Maaser. If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur cholim, miqvah, shuls... I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of the rest of the community. Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. (I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to help, I would appreciate it.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 11:15:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? --------------------- From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 12:22:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170915192219.GD11421@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - : cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools (and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave them some guidelines for defining what that is. But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the complexity of their definition. And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/ poseiq would tell you to compute your share? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 17 07:08:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is the Customer Always Right? Message-ID: <95.E3.03036.1028EB95@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 15:19:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:19:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha > B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to > have a minyan? I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, as compared to wwithout a minyan. I thought that we say it Motzaei Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few days are left and we fear running out of time. Both reasons are even more relevant on Motzaei Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 21:39:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a25b83f-173e-6448-5511-011515a4e304@sero.name> On 18/09/17 18:19, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, > as compared to wwithout a minyan. Without a minyan one can't say the kaddish. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 01:56:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tuitiion Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: RMB wrote: > Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: > Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, > is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW > described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the > differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other > urgent causes? > I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one > may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if > promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are > currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: It is meritorious to support Torah scholars, and you may dedicate a portion of your [maaser kesafim] funds even to support one's own son studying Torah. You may likewise use a portion of these funds to pay for the your adult children's yeshiva gedola, midrasha and college tuition, but you should not draw on these funds for paying tuition while in elementary or high school. [1] However, someone lives a modest lifestyle and still cannot otherwise make ends meet, may draw on these funds even to pay for a portion of his minor children's Jewish day school tuition. [2] Someone who benefits from a scholarship at an institution of Jewish education should prioritize that institution when giving charity, over other institutions. [3] 1: Chatam Sofer YD 249 2: Igrot Moshe YD2 ?113, but Aruch haShulchan YD 249:7 disagrees 3: Oral ruling by Rav Hershel Schachter It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka. I once sent my kids to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we are discussing, since it is a poor community). -- Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 11:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral Message-ID: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> An Aish article notes: >The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >within them. There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first appear in Jewish thought?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 13:33:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom Message-ID: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> The most commonly cited reason that we say "oseh hashalom" rather than "oseh shalom" in kaddish during the 10 days, is that the gematria of hashalom is equivalent to the gematria of Safriel, the malach that "writes" us into the Book. (I just recently read somewhere else: "Hagahos Mordechai [Miseches Rosh Hashanah 720 he states as follows: Safiriel is the Gematria of Oseh and Oseh is the Gematria of Hashalom. Alternatively this hints to the kindness of Hashem that swerves the judgment to merit in a case that the sins and merits are equal, and the verse states "Maaseh Hatzedaka Shalom"." (I don't understand this second reason: the "sholom" in that last phrase doesn't have a "hey") I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their other reasons I am missing?) KvCT! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their > other reasons I am missing?) Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter counts. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:40:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <6d0c6039-0428-0174-88ec-0724ad47e1a5@sero.name> On 19/09/17 14:48, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >> forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >> Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >> imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >> within them. I assume this is in the context of a discussion of the way people in ancient times used to see time as cyclical rather than as progressing, as we moderns see it. > I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. > > Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first > appear in Jewish thought?) The idea that specific days have fixed properties that repeat every time they come around is found everywhere in Chazal. They took it completely for granted, and of course it fits into the cyclical way the ancients saw all of time. But it's clear from the Torah that they *didn't* see time as cyclical. So the author of this article uses the spiral to explain how they did see it. But it's impossible to discuss this entire subject without the insight that there are different ways to see time, and without the two models -- cyclical and progressive -- to contrast, and to propose syntheses as this author does. Chazal did not have the historical perspective to be aware of this whole dichotomy. I suspect they were unaware that the nochrim of their era didn't see time as they did, and that the nochrim were just as unaware that Jews didn't see time as *they* did. Only looking back from 2000 years later is this difference apparent, and we can discuss how the Torah's progressive view of history can be reconciled with dates repeating themselves, by using the spiral analogy. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 08:45:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170925154550.GC23052@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important : >as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, : >are their other reasons I am missing?) : Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the : first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter : counts. At least both the Chassidei Ashkenaz and the Tur held it was. There is no evidence of this line of thought any closer to the actual start of Nusach Ashkenaz. And a number of the Tur's word counts are dependent on flavor of Nusach Ashkenaz. Could well be that the significance is itself part of a bigger machloqes. They could also be taken as post-facto kavvanos, a way keep in mind a pasuq that colors what we mean by the baqashah, rather than causitive. It is interesting to me that the violation of word count gematrios in Nusach Ashkenaz is largely among Chassidim, who we culturally associate as the community most likely to deal in such remez. Except perhaps for Chida and Ben Ish Hai influenced Sepharadim, but they didn't have a nusach that made such claims to ask why they would choose to leave it. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 05:38:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:38:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? Message-ID: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, and what HKB"H wants from us: Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot switch its use). GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 09:30:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 25/09/17 08:38, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, > and what HKB?H wants from us: > Rama Y?D 249:13 (my free translation) ? In any event one shouldn?t > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won?t he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz ? so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 10:19:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:19:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: We change "min kol" to "mikol" to make up for the addition of the extra "l'eila".? So that the word count stays the same.? So yes, we see this kind of thing everywhere, including kaddish. Lisa On 9/19/2017 11:33 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria.? Do we see that elsewhere?? (Or, are > their other reasons I am missing?) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- I leave it to the readers to project if people put a name on as a form of bragging (separate question - is it intent or what observer's perceive that counts?) It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the item is not in danger of being switched in use? GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:29:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170925182902.GA16613@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:37PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An Aish article notes: :> The Jewish model of time is a spiral... : There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it : was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. : The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time : (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. : I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. There is no source, but it's a pretty compelling conclusion given Chazal's description of mo'eid, or chayav kol adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo repeating yetzi'as Mitzrayim annually OT1H, and yet OTOH speaking of history as inexorably running from Adam to the messianic era (and beyond). We might be the first generation consciously aware enough of the issue to think about our use of both language that implies circular time and that of linear time to want to make a synthesis "helical time". (True YU alumni would insist there is no helical time. Meaning comes from the tension of the dialectic; there is no syntheis. ) I don't question the value of lomdus, even though it is utilizing patterns in halakhah or halachic dialectic that weren't made explicit. Yes, that creates a change of error, but when the explanation is strong enough, do we reject the whole concept because the Rambam never spoke about gavra vs cheftza on topics other than oaths? Think how much hashkafah, or specifically Qabbalah, is drawn from just this kind of finding a theory to explain existing statements. This helical time is typical. So, is it a modern chiddush? That isn't a boolean question... to the extent you find this intepretation muchrach, it's inherent in what came bafore. And the the extent you don't, v.v. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:58:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>> Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't :>> glorify oneself with the charity he gives... :> Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their :> donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item :> donated... ... : It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the : item is not in danger of being switched in use? I am personally bothered when there is so much text on the paroches or cloth on the bimah (term?) that it detracts from the aesthetics. I am also bothered when more space is spent naming the donors than naming and perhaps lauding the person in whose memory the donation was given. That said... I think the consensus is that things have fallen to the point that we have two offsetting values that outweigh this ill: 1- When the choice is between collecting multiples more money with giving out honors vs operating on a shoestring and having to cut corners by only taking more purely motivated donations, the extra tzedaqah given is a mitzvah that outweights the alternative. 2- Even someone who has pure motives and wants to give quietly is living in a society that will respond positively if his donation is made public and influences the community. Peer pressure isn't just for teenagers. I think it's parallel to choosing chalitzah as a first choice. It's clear from the pasuq and the content of the ritual that chalitzah is something that in the ideal no one should be encouraged to choose. But as Abba Shaul noted, we don't live in that ideal world, and what was second-rate has become (centuries later) mandatory practice. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 12:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170925190253.GE16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, : as compared to without a minyan... We make a point of demonstrating communal unity in the middle. "Shalom Aleikhem!" Not speaking halachically, as you aren't obligated to greet 9 men, or even really greet anyone. But still... Aside from Zev's example of getting one more qaddish, which is a nice but incidental advantage, it seems to me that QL itself leans toward being a tzibur thing. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:34:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Ben On 9/19/2017 12:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I thought that we say it Motzaei > Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few > days are left and we fear running out of time. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:09:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:09:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <761520c3-faea-cd38-8ba8-ee24f675b3b7@sero.name> On 25/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > cloth on the bimah (term?) mappah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 03:39:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <046338f8-991f-2216-c55d-6002821d57a1@sero.name> On 26/09/17 01:34, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of > Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a > shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Not everyone does that, in fact some don't even say it on Shabbat, and wait until Shavuot. So zrizin doesn't necessarily override avelut. Also many don't do kidush levana until after 7 days from the molad, by which time we're into the deeper avelut. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 06:45:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170926134541.GB23180@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:34:30AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the : 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? ... I am confused. Isn't the implication simply that all else being equal, do it earlier because zerizin, but aveilus is sufficient for not considering all else equal? Why does zerizus being applicable mean that it is necessarily the most urgent halachic principle coming into play? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 11:54:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Over on Areivim, we were yet again discussing the cRc's position that one should not buy coffee from a full Starbucks store that sells food. Here's my take, cut-n-pasted from what I posted there. ... There is a lot of ham and bacon at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=hot-breakfast and poultry at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=sandwiches-panini-and-wraps The cRc's statement refers to these in particular . It also questions your assumption of the ubiquitous use of soap: Chicago Rabbinical Council Guide to Starbucks Beverages May 2013 / June 2015 ... As said, Starbucks shops serve many kosher and non-kosher items, with the most serious non-kosher item being hot meat sandwiches. The standard daily clean-up at Starbucks includes a hot wash of all utensils and some parts of that washing are done without soap. This clean up process significantly challenges the kosher status of the otherwise kosher products and each product must be judged by a competent halachic authority. The cRc has made available their detailed review and analysis of this topic in the spring 2011 edition of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and that article can be found below. Click here to read this article. The good news is that there are many Starbucks locations that do not serve hot meat sandwiches. These are generally the Starbucks kiosks which can be defined as a Starbucks location, usually found in a mall, retail store, a bus or train station or airport, that does not sell hot sandwiches. The cRc is comfortable recommending any drink made from kosher ingredients (even though some others use ingredients that may not be kosher). This list is accurate at this time for stores in the United States based on two and a half years of extensive research and consultation with the cRc's Av Beth Din, Rav Schwartz, shlit"a.... Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. And that is consistent with the lenient majority. We're trying to understand the cRc's ruling. There is no derabbanan here[, to justify another poster's invocation of safeiq derabbanan]. They're saying that the odds of your cup being washed without soap with a plate that held hot bacon or tereifah chicken is high enough that one needs to avoid taking that risk. But that's real nosein ta'am of an issur de'oraisa. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:56pm +0300 someone wrote to Areivim, on a discussion of the cRc's ruling against : I don't drink coffee at all, so I'm not a frequent Starbucks customer, but : I suspect that a sandwich like : https://www.starbucks.com/menu/food/sandwiches-panini-and-wraps/chicken-blt-salad-sandwich?foodZone=9999 : is probably at least 1/60th chicken or bacon. The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 13:17:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women Message-ID: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the topic of leadership/ordination for women. (I am indebted to some of those here who helped sharpen arguments :-) ). I think I have adequately illustrated that their position is based on wrong/unproven facts, poor logic, fuzzy definitions, strained arguments, and inconsistent application of the rules. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need to have a comprehensive and systematic approach to gender and public/leadership. I am happy to respond to questions, critiques and criticisms. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/sneak-peek-an-analysis-of-the-ban-on-women-rabbis/ Noam Stadlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 12:38:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926193827.GA27624@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:56:59AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: :> I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one :> may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if :> promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are :> currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. : From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: ... : It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as : tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his : minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But : what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka.... Agreed, but I don't see how it's obvious. Say your handyman is a pious guy, and rather than not doing business with people who can't afford his full rate, he charges them less for labor. Also, Rn Handyman isn't so willing to take the full hit on total income. Since this is a nice guy, we can assume that if more of the town were wealthier, his usual rate for someone who can beqoshi stretch the budget would be lower. Is the difference in salary tzedaqah? Does it make a difference if Reb Handyman actuall did this accounting and maybe even announced the resulting differential? Or is a baal melakhah's pay rate money owed, and such cheshbonos should be irrelevent. This imaginary scenario was designed to be both parallel and to my mind a somewhat wild line of reasoning. 1- Once you say that any tuition paid beyond the cost for your child is indeed tzedaqah, one needs a pesaq about how to apportion group costs to each individual student. The cost of the class divided by students, then the cost of school administation divided by the student body? Or maybe if a teacher is hired as soon as a class would otherwise grow beyond 25 students, I should be looking at the incremental cost of my child after the need to start the additional class was caused by someone else? And then -- could it depend on if I registered late, or before the number of classes was determined? And don't get me started on who is paying for resource room staff, where there are parallels to the above AND the reality that different kids would be using different amount of the service. So that my kid's 1 hour per week may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to get a math specialist, whereas another student's 5 hours of readin help is with a teacher they needed otherwise. Who pays what? 2- Once you make it tzedaqah, rather than considering tuition as debt, all could be fine-and-well halachically. And so it can come out of maaser kesafim. (All the more so because we aren't even sure maaser kesafim is a din.) And the schools like this, because it frees up maaser money for people who would otherwise need scholarship. But the line you're replying to was arguing that there is a downside for the school as well. As the teshuvah we started from notes -- debt is a higher priority than tzedaqah. You don't pay maaser out of money owed. And so, the school is marketing a din that may mean /less/ money for them than if the halakhah were that the full tuition should be treated as a debt. position for a sch chakhamim don't have to pay city defenses; maybe a good kid who doesn't see the principal should be considered : to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition : may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we : are discussing, since it is a poor community). GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 21:47:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> References: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4d52778a-5fe9-0dae-592c-ff6316a77877@sero.name> On 26/09/17 14:54, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health > department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough > regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. They wash in soapy water first, and then in clear water. The cRc's position is that soapy water, which is hotter than yad soledes bo but cooler than kashering temp, prevents the transmission of treife taam from one keli to another when they are washed together, but it does *not* render the treife keli permanently pagum. The treife keli comes out just as treif as it was, so when it's then put into *clean* hot water together with the kosher keli the treife taam transfers. > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical substance at all, so it's not surprising that even if it permeates the keli's entire structure, which we assume it does, it doesn't add to its mass. This is also why the bracha on coffee is shehakol, not ha'etz, because there is no substance of the coffee bean in the final product; only taam, smell, and colour are transferred in the brewing, all of which are assumed to have zero mass. Which makes the existence of instant coffee a conundrum, and casts doubt on the practise of saying shehakol also on coffee made from instant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Tabory via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom Message-ID: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. Yosef Tabory From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 08:26:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170927152646.GD1177@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote: : Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of : the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel : minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)... Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah. I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian "Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon, they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation -- 10 yemei teshuvah. To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh. : Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, : the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not : wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought : that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh : Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh) had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom" in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify abandoning it. ----- While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef, let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in "Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi yontef nusach for the joke to work. Why are so many Jews overweight? Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we sing: Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein! Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8), apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates! GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:30:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:30:33 +0000 Subject: “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux Message-ID: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> >From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")? A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart" (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13). IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me) GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:29:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:29:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds Message-ID: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense that A gets more credit(schar) than B? My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish, etc.) Thoughts? GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 19:34:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom Message-ID: . Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz. I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. Specifically: Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912 Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928 Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940 (Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.) Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949 Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950 Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960 The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960 Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982 There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this machlokes. However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different, and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America (who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 18:20:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical > substance at all, ... I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical substance? I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* be removed by cleaning. Gmar chasima tova to all, Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:21:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? Message-ID: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Please see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v I personally have always used money for Kapporas was. This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly mistreated before they are used for Kapporas. IIRC a few years ago it was discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water or food and died. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:31:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had to be discarded. After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost everywhere with the kapporos chickens. Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim: it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here. I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko. But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:48:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical >> substance at all, ... > > I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence > that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical > substance? I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a modern person to wrap ones head around. > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must > be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* > be removed by cleaning. If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing left to kasher! All you've done is clean the surface. There was never a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on the surface. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:54:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7096234e-1e3d-84c3-bb8b-dcfebecbb79f@starways.net> On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 10:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170928170022.GC32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence :> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical :> substance? : I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for : a modern person to wrap ones head around. I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT) about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion: : On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got :> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is :> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean :> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the :> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... : If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get : it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I : always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance : absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel : possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we understand an experience intellectually. This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs, etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience. My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer, than on the physics of the objects being utilized. Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance (like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance" (as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the past agreed with. If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked: > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the whole pot is indeed tainted. I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 12:03:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v ... : This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly : mistreated before they are used for Kapporas... That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens, not the minhag. This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag. The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag. In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it? Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori. (It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.) And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and "ve'ein leshanos". Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa") or not been doing kapparos at all. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 11:52:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588ee3662a16491c9404fcc82bfe2e8a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom. Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 28 22:03:26 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them > a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate object such as money. You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. > Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 29 13:15:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the : >Maharil)... : : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather from his own money. (Shelah) : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a meilitz yosher before going into din. I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the pidyon of the person. :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree.... Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag vasiqin"? GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht : Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a : life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it : with an inanimate object such as money. : : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but : the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after : kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or : else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The : Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, : since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. : : : >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- : >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were : doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand : it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. : : -- : Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, : zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all : _______________________________________________ : Avodah mailing list : Avodah at lists.aishdas.org : http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org : GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From zev at sero.name Fri Sep 29 13:33:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > : >Maharil)... > : > : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it > : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... > > Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather > from his own money. (Shelah) As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... > > Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is > inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer > to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a > meilitz yosher before going into din. Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka. Plus, kaporos is not done right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend doing it as much as a few days earlier). > I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have > primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation? > I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the > pidyon of the person. The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. > :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. > > : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means > : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its > : pedigree.... > > Source? It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". > He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously > suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves > pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin > to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition > fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag > vasiqin"? The same thing. Although don't know who gave this heter someone must have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we don't understand it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:05:15 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog Message-ID: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one? From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:14:07 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to another book which I don't own). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Sep 30 13:35:00 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: If I can mix actuality with the idea below: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. Ben On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the > Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after > kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or > else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer > Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since > it's less embarrassing to the recipient. From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:22:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c1fa29c-aa4b-122a-0dce-bfe50d5e5e32@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 > minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of > Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). > > What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to > another book which I don't own). Shulchan aruch OC 649. See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like the Rambam. Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being covered in more red berries than leaves, etc. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 19:18:58 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov Message-ID: . A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group: > The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when > Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is > known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is > a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one > is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in > for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving > lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed > and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good > both physically and spiritually! When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos. My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov? I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos. Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years, I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic - allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running, Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote "Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".) So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Looking forward to your responses. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sat Sep 30 18:03:12 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171001010312.GA17048@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". : > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will : > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give : > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather : > from his own money. (Shelah) : : As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do : kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. : Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos : is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give : tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. : >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is : >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer : >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a : >meilitz yosher before going into din. : : Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama : and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all : of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) As you yourself write, epmashsis added: : The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, : instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can : buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. : >: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : >: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : >: pedigree.... : > : >Source? : : It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a : plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find "vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim. Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless. The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the chain was already broken for a couple of generations. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 21:05:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3040f2fc-ea44-2eaf-3016-6c25f3b8b9c6@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and > sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the > mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only > applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar one may buy the cheaper one. The second opinion is that even if both are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a third more for the better one. This rule is not just for esrog, it's in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b). > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you can)? If > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a > hiddur to buy one? It means neither one. You left out a word. The Mechaber's language is "*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish". One should buy the better one, *if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior one. If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it. But there's certainly no restriction if you want to. The gemara says "Up to a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:25:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If I can mix actuality with the idea below: > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 > > What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with > tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or > honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that > affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in > Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck. There's nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-) Especially on Erev Yom Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah. The scandal is that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah. If they shechted them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared. [Email #2] On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". >:> And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will >:> be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give >:> maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather >:> from his own money. (Shelah) >: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do >: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. >: Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos >: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give >: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person > to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. We clearly have switched topics. There is no other way to read the Rama. The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka. The Rama says that we should not change this minhag. Then he says how it should be done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white. *Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the person. and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam". It's a pidyon just like pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the poor, we buy it back from tzedaka. >:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is >:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer >:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a >:> meilitz yosher before going into din. >: Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama >: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all >: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... > The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor > person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly. The minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them money. On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable. See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned earlier. So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery. See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to the poor. (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.) > (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about > a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes > no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) Where did you get this idea? There's nothing about it in the source we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen. The pasuk from Iyov is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" that we will shecht instead of this "gever". It has nothing to do with doing a mitzvah. Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov. > As you yourself write, epmashsis added: >: The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, >: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can >: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this. Giving it to the poor is a separate minhag. BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries or something, but you think it's good enough for them. This isn't a logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money prevents it. On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy day). >:>: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means >:>: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its >:>: pedigree.... This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an old minhag". But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised what it was. "Vosik" does not mean old. You're confusing it with "`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; strong; distinguished". "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a distinguished scholar". "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee distinguished among the nations". "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the conscientiously pious men of former days." So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn because they can't sleep anyway:-) [Email #3] PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really. https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7 defines it in leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced". So even when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time itself but to the experience gained over that time. The etymology is not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy". It does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, but of experience. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 1 19:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" Message-ID: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> 1) Balaam advocates the destruction of an entire people. He is a hired gun (or mouth) who has exploited his prophetic gift and is willing to help implement a genocide for the right price. This type of individual has separated himself from all people, hence, this position of his is coded in his very name Balaam, "B'li Am," "without a people." 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is called an "aton.? Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of the physical. But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey, therefore his donkey speaks to him -- the inference being that Balaam has descended to an animalistic level, and that is the symbolism of the donkey talking to him. I see it as "chamor" in the sense of "heavy" referring to Abraham, since he carries so much more weight than Balaam. On the other hand, Balaam's donkey is called ?aton,? very similar to the word "etnan" which means a "harlot's pay? ? quitet fascinating since Balaam prostituted himself with the intention of fulfilling Balak's request. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.? Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 2 08:25:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: RMB wrote: > IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than > Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ > that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what > the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions > in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) > believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in > 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. Indeed, I recall, upon dealing with those various shittos while in RIETS, particularly as covered by Rav Charlop in a shiur of his, that Satmar and Rav Kook are a lot closer to each other than to Agudah & Rav Soloveitchik. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 09:14:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:14:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?What_is_the_correct_way_to_pronounce_Hashem?= =?cp1255?q?=92s_name_in_Shmoneh_Esrei_and_other_brachos=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170703161444.GC18193@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Halacha Yomis ... : A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D ... "We have : a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, : that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY : -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf : Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." First, we know from seifer Shoferim that different shevatim had different accents, such that Shevet Ephraim (like Litvaks of a much later date) pronounced as right-dotted shin the same as a sin or samekh. So how can we talk about a single accent even at Har Sinai? I therefore assume RSZE Hy"d was saying that you need to use your mesorah's patach-cholam-qamatz, as he spells out in the rephrasing. And that these vowels are what's misinai. Which is also problematic, as the division of various possible vowel alophones into specific phonemes probably didn't happen until Teverya. This next paragraph may make your eyes glaze over. It justifies the previous one, but feel free to skip it if it bores you and move on to the next point: Which explains why Bavel's nequdos don't line up one-to-one with the ones we use today -- one symbol for segol and patach and one symbol for qamatz qatan and cholam with a different one for. And the prior Israeli system fits Sepharadi pronounciation, fewer symbols showing less differentiation, but it could simply be less precise. The way we still have one symbol for qamatz qatan and qamatz gadol, or sheva na and sheva nach. (Unless you are using a "simanim" or other non-standard printing. Unicode actually supports this differentiation, if you find a font and a text file that distinguishes.) One symbol does not mean one phoneme. But it hints at how the locals viewer the vowels. Like Rashi, who echoes the Babylonian single segol-patach system when he refers to a segol as a patach qatan. (If you are still reading this paragraph, you'd probably enjoy our mesorah email list. Ask me to sign you up!) R Rallis Weisenthal (CC-ed), in his siddur in memory of Qh"Q Bad Homburg pg LXV (on opensiddur.org), lists traditional Ashkneazi cholam sounds, claiming that they're all dipthongs. ("Claiming", because I am not sure he's right on one of them): Poland, Austria-Hungary komatz chirik O^i [t]oy Lithuania, Russia segol chirik Ae^i [p]ay Northern Germany, Holland patach shuruk A^u [h]ow Southern Germany, Switzerland, France, Latvia, England, North America komatz shuruk O^u [g]o I think the Lithuanian cholam was originally more like /oe/ a sound halfway between /o/ and a tzeirei. (And the /e/ of the tzeirei isn't quite the same as a segol.) What he is describing reflects later Polish influence, a compromise position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio could help here. And I think the British cholam actually is rounder than a qamatz, like a long /O/ in English. And like a long /O/, there is a tendency to add a rounding /w/ (eg "blow"), but it's not always there. Maybe a dipthong of qamatz qatan and a /w/, which is shitas haGra. Not entirely different than what RRW writes, but also not quite as implied from his description. Anyway, he has a continuing discussion by R' Y Kramer againt using a /y/ or /i/ sound to round a cholam. Go to the above link. It's too long and two bi-lingual for me to cut-n-paste here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 10:03:51PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. : However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is : called an "aton." : Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) : suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of : the physical. : But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey... Thus the root "aleph-tav", meaning together with (eg "ito bateivah"). The Gra makes this point about riding a chamor being mastery of one's chomer vs being together with one's ason. I bet RAK cites him. He lurks here, but I took the liberty of CC-ing RAK so as to get his attention. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 11:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The Maharal -- preceded the Gra on this point. Here is a paragraph from the new edition of Explorations (anticipated 20th anniversary edition) The denouement of history is in our hands. The Mashiach will be revealed in clouds of glory if we are worthy; if we are unworthy, our redemption will be of a far less exalted nature. If we are deserving, the clouds will be revealed sooner; if not, the redemption will take longer, and the process will be slow and plodding -- but the redemption will surely come. And just as the clouds are an image that is laden with meaning, representing man's ability to recognize and connect to the metaphysical plane, so, too, the image of the Messiah as a poor man riding on his donkey is no mere literary device: According to mystical sources, this metaphor holds the key to the redemption itself: The Zohar[1] explains that the role of Mashiach is to ride on the chamor, to subdue the physical.[2] ________________________________ [1] Zohar Bemidbar 207a ???? ??? ? ?? ??/? ????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?????"?. ?????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??????????, (????? ??) ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????"? ?????????. ?????? ???? ??????, ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? Those of the right are all merged in one called "donkey," and that is the donkey of which it is written, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" [Devarim 22:10]. That is also the donkey which the King Mashiach shall control. (Zohar, Bemidbar 207a) [2] See comments of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael chapter 40. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? - ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ?"? ???????? ???"? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????...??"? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. Can I repeat that second line on list? As for the first line... In general, email lists are failing. And yet, I don't want to move Avodah to a medium that encourages quick and short answers. If Avodah can't remain a place for in-depth discussion, I'll let it fade away. Mail-Jewish, the grand-daddy in the field, is coming out with a digest every two weeks or so. Although it's healthier than Avodah in terms of breadth of contributor pool. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 07:54:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it Message-ID: Recently, someone quoted a friend as saying something about how doing something for the wrong reason could constitute making the Mishna Burah into an Avodah Zara. Or something like that, I don't remember exactly, and I spent almost an hour trying to find the post, so that's why I can't quote it. Anyway, that person was wondering where the idea came from, and I found the following in the current issue of Jewish Action, also available online at https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ > Love of Torah does not always translate into love of > people ? or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk > caustically noted that increased religious observance is not > always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather > sometimes it is for the sake of ?worshipping the Shulchan Aruch.? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 11:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad Message-ID: Mishnah Megillah 4:9 teaches us: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad just like he blesses for the good." That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are talking about two different situations: If one has actually experienced something, then he must bless God for the good *OR* for the bad, whichever applies to the experience. There is no need to be inclusive, to mention that He is responsible for both. But when one speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when he must mention both the good and the bad. Or perhaps he can speak in generalities, but he must be careful not to suggest that God does *only* good things, to the exclusion of painful things: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that He *does* good. The things He does is described mostly in terms of the life He gives us, and the miracles that He does. (It is true that at one point it we thank Him for "tovosecha" - Your good things - but that is secondary, coming after "niflaosecha".) But then we turned to the fourth bracha of Birkas Hamazon, usually referred to as "Hatov v'haMaytiv" - "the One who is good, and does good" - from the central words. And then it continues: "Hu haytiv, hu maytiv, hu yaytiv lanu" - "He has done good, He does do good, and He will do good to us." And it closes with: "He will never deprive us of anything good." Where is the bad? In what way is this bracha not a violation of this mishna in Megilla? I concede that we've left out the Mishna's word "yizacher", but I don't think that is relevant. It appears to go directly against what the Gemara Megilla wrote, "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad." Is there any way to reconcile this gemara with this bracha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 13:44:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/07/17 14:54, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But when one > speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when > he must mention both the good and the bad. No. There is no need to mention all the things He does. Nor is there any need, when thanking Him for the good things He does, to include also the other things He does. What one may not do is declare that He is *to be thanked for* the good things He does, which implies He is *not* to be thanked for the other things he does. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:15:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered Message-ID: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:17:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:17:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 08:00:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170706150007.GD11698@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:17:31PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? : If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at : all minyanim? By whom? In an alternate reality, where I went into kelei qodesh instead of Wall Street programming jobs, there is (would have been?) a movement by now called Mevaqshei Tov veYosher, a/k/a Other-Focused Orthodoxy (OFO). The OFO flagship shul, Yishrei Leiv, hosts AishDas programming, of course, and at this point in alternate time, has a number of ve'adei mussar, shiurim in machashavah and workshops in tefillah. And, in line with OFO ideology, the rule for who can correct the baal qeri'ah is simple. The only people who can do so are (would be): 1- the gabbaim, 2- the rav, and 3- next week's baal qeri'ah . (Everyone else should go to the gabbaim quietly. Even at the expense of an occasional repeated pasuq. But also gabbaim would need to know diqduq and be able to field the simpler questions of which mistakes actually require correction.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 7 15:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:51:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION Message-ID: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> I sent an email to AVODAH where I mistakenly wrote that Rav Rivkas from Rabbeinu HaGra's family did not write Be'er Hagolah seeking to correct their misspelling. I wrote Bay.ur Hagolah. NEITHER is correct. He wrote B' er HaGolah. there is a shva under the Bais. I ws mistakenly thinking of ppl mistakenly saying Biur HaGra instead of Bay.ur Hagra. My mistake but as least I was thinking of the Gra. :) Reb Joel -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:51:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] the desire to be remembered Message-ID: <000001d2f823$a6448d60$f2cda820$@actcom.net.il> I would call this the need for recognition or the desire for kavod. I think it is a yetzer akin to the need for food or the desire for sex, the yetzer hara that is 'tov la'adam' as Bereshit Rabba puts it. Without the appetite for food, we would probably die of malnutrition; without the desire for sexual pleasure we would probably not want to procreate, and without the desire for kavod/recognition, we would probably be sociopaths. Our need for recognition (desire to be remembered, if you prefer) enables everything from toilet training to basic manners to our desire to contribute positively to society. If we did not need the approval of our parents and our peers, we would never get far enough along the path of social interaction to learn the rewarding nature of altruism and doing good for the sake of doing good. The process of socialization makes us human. Without our need for kavod/approval/recognition, it is hard to see how we could ever be educated. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 14:24:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:24:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India Message-ID: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties between Israel and India? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 19:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India In-Reply-To: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> References: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 08/07/17 17:24, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol > worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties > between Israel and India? I don't see why. There were treaties between our ancient kings and foreign rulers, pretty much all of whom served AZ. And of course there's the treaty between Yaacov & Lavan, which was explicitly backed by each party's deity/ies. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 08:24:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION In-Reply-To: <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> References: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59624AA6.4070406@schnurassociates.com> at least I know that there are some people actually reading what I send out, so TY 2 Rabbi Ralbag, shimon, Capt Dan and I think Mendy for responding. as for the rabbi's comment, I am pleased to see/read that he has a good sense of humor. I also learned how to spell email in Hebrew. My announced CORRECTION reminds me of the incident with Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he had a prober for being Rosh Hayeshiva for KOL TORAH. he was giving his shiur and someone corrected him. He stopped, thought about it and then said 'taeeti" figuring he blew his chance for getting the job. Afterwards they told him he was selected as RY and he supposedly said "but I blew it when I made that mistake." Just the opposite they said. We want someone who is able to admit he made a mistake. and with that story, I end this adventure. :) B'yidedus, Joel > Rav Ralbag > July 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM > ?? JOEL: > ???? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. > ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????-??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? > ????? !! > ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? - ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? > ??? !!!!??? > ??? ???? ????? ?????-????? ! > ????? ???? ???? ??? ?-?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ??????? ??? ????? > ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? - ?????, ???? ????? ???? > ???? !!! > ??????? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, > ???? ????? On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, mendy stern wrote: > So you want to be the Rosh Yeshiva? Only if the yeshiva davens nusach HaGra! Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 19:36:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? ---------------- My shul does not, except that the previous (now deceased Rav) was very against it, quoting the Tur about embarrassing the Baal Korei. That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 20:00:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:00:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <04ba01d2f928$bced1db0$36c75910$@gmail.com> R' JR: R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? ------------------------ Maslow's highest level in his Hierarchy of Needs (in its later permutations) is self-transcendence. I think that's what you're talking about. Here's some further on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcenden ce KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 02:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:45:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ================================ We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 09:24:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: ?Pinhas? has turned back Chamati, My wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11) So, Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous, difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamati (my wrath), the two outside letters chet and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters, mem and tav, read meit ? death. The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meit) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai). (Also, if you remove the "W" (for Wilderness) from "wrath" and replace it with "O" (for Obedience to God), the ?orath? can be rearranged to read Torah). Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live. Norman Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 11:58:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:37am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote to Areivim: : In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla : attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. : : My review and analysis of his failed approach to halacha is at : http://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/2017/7/7/the-not-so-orthodox-embrace-of-the-new-age-movement Although RBR posted to Areivim, I have an Avodah question. To quote: > To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For > example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has > been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to > the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved > as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies > it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, > or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it > globally. And the article discusses things like auras and other New Age ideas that if traced back to their origins one will find AZ. Is it all that different than the gemara's discussion or wearing a fox's tooth, where even a Rationalist like the Rambam (Shabbos 19:13) permits? Darkhei Emori are allowed for refu'ah (AZ 67a). Also Rashi (Chullin 77b "yeish") which according to the Panim Me'iros (1:36) includes any act to the body to be healed, but not "spooky action at a distance" (to quote Dr Einstein out of context). The Ran (Chullin ad loc) based on this Rashi explicitly permits any act we know works to heal, even if the workings are metaphysical. So is the difference only in which metaphysics I personally believe is real, and which is -- again, IMHO -- "woowoo"? And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? Are the laws of tereifos, which say put despite later findings about what an animal can live 12 months with, and what not, typical and precedent to say we go with Chazal's science, law is law, ignore the science? Or is it an exception because tereifos is halakhah leMoshe miSinai? I could see the standard of medical testing being decided by that question... Or... when it comes to which saqanos one is allowed to risk, the standard is normal and accepted. If people tend to climb trees to pick dates, it is mutar to get a job risking a fall from the top of a date-palm. Perhaps medicine too is defined by societal standards. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 12:27:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> References: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> Message-ID: And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 14:47:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170710214723.GA29132@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to : be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this : desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's : knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or : general society)? >From a recent blog post of mine, The Interpersonal Aspect of Parah Adumah : To illustrate how the Yerushalmi works, I enjoy taking a rather extreme case -- Berakhos 7:1, 51b: 1. Rav Huna said: Three who eat, this one by himself, this one by himself, and this one by himself, who then mix together should bentch with a mezuman. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three people, so that each ate with an obligation of zimun, even if from different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may make a zimun] when they ate together. 1. Rabbi Yonah [commented] on that which Rab Hunah [was just quoted as saying]: If [the kohein] dipped three hyssop sprigs [into the water made with the ashes of a parah adumah], this one by itself and this one by itself, and mixed them [the hyssops] together, one may sprinkle [the person needing taharah] with them. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three sprigs, so that each sprig was dipped as part of a group of three, even if different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may may be used for sprinkling parah adumah water] when they were dipped together. ... But what justifies this comparison? Is it really an expectation that all groups of three ought to be alike, regardless of the topic or the sort of group? In 1973, Ernest Becker wrote a book on philosophy and psychology titled "The Denial of Death". To give a thumbnail of his basic thesis, here are some snippets from [38]The Becker Foundation's "Theories" page: "[T]he basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death." ... The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of mortality. Since human beings have a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we can transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving the symbolic half. Becker describes human pursuit of "immortality projects" (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things. Still, for Becker, the only suitable source of meaning is transcendent, cosmic energy, divine purpose... Becker develops an idea that strikes most of us naturally. A central -- and perhaps THE central -- piece of our drives to contribute to community and to pursue a higher meaning is because these both overcome our own death. What I give my children outlives me in my children, grandchildren and beyond. What I contribute to the Jewish People is eternal because our nation is eternal. What I add to the development of humanity from Adam to the messiah outlives me in impacting the lives of generations to come. Fear of death, the need to embark on "immortality projects" can push us to expand our souls to beyond our mortal bodies. As Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to his substance and body. Above that one is someone who feels that his "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above that one is someone who can include in his "ani" all of his household and family.... And there are more levels in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the world and worlds are his "ani," and he himself is only one small limb in all of creation.... Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and [even] all of creation. The parah adumah is about overcoming death. A person who witnessed or experienced another's death is told to go through a ritual of changing tracks... He not only sees three sprigs from a scrubby bush, but also is thinking about joining together and how he can join with others. How to turn that conversation around from death and its reminder that we are merely physical beings toward death as a drive to go beyond that. We should not forget the most cryptic (choq-like) element of the parah adumah. ... [I]t requires that someone from the community reach out to them, even at their own expense. A true uniting of someone who might be thinking about death and man-as-mammal back into being a person contributing meaning to a larger community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 19:08:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on > chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better > standards for testing medicine? R' Joel Rich responded: > The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud > certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and > correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with > sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what > was known to them in their time." > > I'd appreciate specific examples I recently tried to learn a bit about Techum Shabbos. I was very surprised to find an entire siman (#399, with eleven se'ifim), giving details of exactly how the techum is to be measured. For example, the first se'if specifies that we must use a linen rope exactly 50 amos long. I was very surprised that the halacha would write such things, rather than simply presuming that we'd be smart enough to use whatever procedures are generally accepted as accurate. This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do it. The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective one, and tradition might rule. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 21:51:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> R' JR: We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. -------------------------------- I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 04:56:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fb6f6b1-b8cd-4075-09ea-8f770a1b66bd@zahav.net.il> If the person is reading from a full Bible, I will just listen. If I am not sure what book he's reading from, I'll read it to myself. IIRC the Mishna Bruria takes it as a given that the reason most shuls don't read from the klaf is because of the cost. Given today's incomes and fancy shuls, that shouldn't be a factor. And yet, it is the rare beit knesset where they read from a klaf. Ben On 7/11/2017 6:51 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? > > KT, > MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 15:50:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170711225048.GA29349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be : corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to : themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach : Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. : : Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? I will confirm. ... WRT shuls that aren't leining from kelaf. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 17:09:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 18:31:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170712013159.GA6359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, : who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a : surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, : they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do : it. Say I were to use a shorter rope. Well, then my measurments would include more dips and bumps. Whereas the 50 ammah rope might cut a direct path, a shorter rope would have two segments, in different angles. The measure would be longer than if you just cut the tangent. (And in fact, since most landscape is fractal, or nearly fractal until you get cown to molecules, if your "ruler" were smaller than a grain of sand, you could probably measure 50 amos along the wrinkles of the surface within an arm's reach of where you started.) So, the length of the rope will actually change the final measure. The navi implies that a shorter rope would be /too/ accurate, forcing a smaller measure than necessary. The weight of the chain means that sagging is more common, as lest if you aren't a surveyor. Or maybe the exact strechiness of linen - less than wool but more than metal, is also part of the actual measure. ... : The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might : agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better : procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring : distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular : procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective : science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective And to reframe where I was going above in these terms: There are times when Chazal are not trying to establish objective facts. (Or, to revive another old thread and my hangup about how halakhah defines metzi'us: ... to establish as objectively as possible those facts that could potentially enter our subjective experience.) In nidon didan, the question would be: In order for a treatment not to be derekh emori, and to be allowed on Shabbos where medicine for a choleh sh'ein bo saqanah would be allows, does it 1- have to be established as potentially effect to the best we can establish it? or 2- have to be accepted as potentially effective by chazaqah, which is the normal rule for justifying presumption in cases of doubt? How objetive are we being asked to be? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 12 19:06:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:06:59 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not Shechted? Meaning, if we have a creature that cannot be Shechted, but it is not a non-Kosher species, it might be a Neveilah but be Kosher to eat because there is no prohibition on eating Neveilah. The non-fully gestated cow sheep or goat, even if it is born in the normal manner, is not classified in Halacha as Bakar or Tzon. See Rashi Chulin 72b end of Mishneh. It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 03:33:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170713103351.GD14756@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:54:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ :> Love of Torah does not always translate into love of :> people -- or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk :> caustically noted that increased religious observance is not :> always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather :> sometimes it is for the sake of "worshipping the Shulchan Aruch." In R' Shlomo Wolbe, Alei Shur, vol II, "Frumkeit" , speaks of halachic obervant not for the sake of worshipping G-d, but speaks to why one would "worship the SA" if it isn't about G-d. A translation of the opening: > Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge to connect to the Creator. This > instinct is also found in animals. King David said, " The young lions roar > after their prey, and seek their food from G-d." (Psalms 104:21) "He gives > to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." (Psalms 147:9) > There is no need to understand these verses as [mere] figures of > speech -- animals have an instinctive sense that there exists One who > is concerned about their sustenance. This instinct [also] operates in > man -- on a higher level, of course. This natural frumkeit [instinct] > assists us in our service of G-d, and without this natural assistance > our service would would be extremely heavy upon us. However, frumkeit, > like any other instinctive urge that operates within man, is naturally > egotistical and self-centered. Accordingly, frumkeit drives a person to > do only that which is good for himself -- [in contrast, positive] actions > between man and his fellow man, as well as wholehearted actions between > man and G-d are not fueled by frumkeit. One who bases his service on it > alone remains egocentric. Even if he were to impose many stringencies > upon himself, he would not become a man of kindness, and he would not > reach [the level of] altruistic service. This is what necessitates that > we base our service specifically on intellect... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 16:31:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:00:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3abd2947-8a52-7433-c908-731af71507b2@sero.name> On 13/07/17 19:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr > Gouraud of the US. Google misinforms you. See, e.g., http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1412.htm#20 Or, lehavdil, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/1935454 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:37:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> R' MB: The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. --------------------------------- Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which was intended for facial hair. KT, MYG P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:11:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20170714151122.GB32531@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: : Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which : was intended for facial hair. It says that the poor "waxed" themselves with sid; and I am assumign that's not for skin as sensitive as cheeks. The rich used soles. Was this as an abrasive? Is fine flour even abrasive, or (as I seem to recall of today's grindings) -- soft? I think the rich used white makeup. And benos melakhim used shemen hamor, which we are told is acidic olive oil from underripe olives. While I do not doubt that benos melakhim tried this a means to reduce hair growth (the gemara says it also ma'adan habasar) I do doubt it worked. More recently (meaning, up to the mass production of depilatories) in Europe, cat's urine (for the ammonia, a strong base) or vinegar (an acid) were used. Both were believed to prevent or reduce hair growth, not remove what did gwo. But both failed double-blind testing. : P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use : wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. Many NA nations also tend to produce far less facial hair than most Jewish men to start with. I guess people can learn to get used to it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714152753.GA14639@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:59PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not : Shechted? In his Bar Mitzvah derashah, R' Chaim Brisker proved that neveilah and tereifah were aspects of the same underlying issur. Thus explaining (among other points I do not remember) why the Rambam holds that a neveilah and a tereifah can be metz'tarfos to a kezayis issur. Which would imply that WRT eating, all non-shechted meat is the same, and the issur is the lack of shechitah, not the tum'as neveilah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:47:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714154729.GB14639@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies : that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that : contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad : just like he blesses for the good." But that doesn't mean he must bless for the bad whenever he blesses for the good. Which is I think the chiluq that resolves the problems you raised. : That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say : one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one : experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On : *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is : irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Actually, even painful effects of the same occasion. Like the textbook case: Inheriting a large some of money requires making both Dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. : Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are : talking about two different situations... I think they are both talking about the good and tragic in the same situations. The first mishnah is prohibiting someone from even implying in a non-response context that when experiencing tragedy, one can skip Dayan ha'emes. : So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually : followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It : turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is : mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that : He *does* good.... Mah beinaihu? After all, all His "Middos" are about appearances and how the effects of his Action look to us. And actually, it pretty explicitly says in one point that it's about G-d appearing to us as Good -- "'haTov' shimkha". But as I opened, I didn't see Megillah as saying when we offer general thanks, it must be about both. Rather, he cannot be the kind of peson that skips thanking Him for those things He does "for our own good" (to paraphrase the stereotypical parent line). And thus, no problem in the 4th berakhah of bentching, either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:08:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: . R' Meir G Rabi asked: > It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just > like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. Why can't a horse be shechted? Is it missing the simanim? Of course, it would still be assur to eat the horse because it is a tamay species, but would that prevent one from doing a valid shechita? (I vaguely recall a case where a choleh sheyesh bo sakana was prescribed pork by his doctor, and the rav told him to shecht the chazir.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:02:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of him that is generally accepted as accurate? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:26:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure > I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone > reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only > the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go > 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? I have no idea what you mean by "litvishe" in this context. Do you mean Nusach Ashenaz, or Yeshivish, or In A Yeshiva, or something else? Anyway, in the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls and yeshivos that I have attended, virtually no one reads the haftara to himself, regardless of whether the Reader is reading from a klaf, a printed Tanach, or a Chumash. And those few who *do* read it to themselves are (unfortunately) loud enough to make it difficult to hear the Reader. In the Nusach Sefard shuls I've been to, there much more people reading to themselves. In fact, the Reader often doesn't even attempt to raise his voice so that others can hear him. But I've attended Nusach Sefard shuls rarely enough that I cannot venture a guess about the percentages. R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:23:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:23:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185632c6b5e74915992256cfd1207daf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ because I assumed that one was not being yotzeih with that reading but one's own Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 20:00:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:00:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes > are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of > the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an > educational thing"? I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. There is a chiyuv for a tzibur to read the Torah, although not on any individual to hear it. Even if ten men come into shul after krias hatorah they do not have to make it up, but if it was not read at all then the tzibur must make it up. But with the haftarah even if it was not read at all they need not make it up; this shows that there is no chiyuv, and therefore nothing that can be said not to have been fulfilled. Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:24:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? Or to be less pretencious: *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos on the other side? My wife is a righty and we use joint accounts. We are both listed as owners, and both of our names were on the mortgage. Even if I were supposed to hang my mezuzos on the left, are we shutefim in owning the house and therefore it should follow the rightward norm? I asked R' Gidon Rothstein, since it was his recent post on Torah Musings that launched my wondering, and he felt that it would go by the assumption that typical people coming in and out of the house are righty, and the owner's handedness shouldn't matter. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 08:25:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> References: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/07/17 22:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the > baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? > > Or to be less pretencious:*Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his > mezuzos on the other side? I wouldn't expect it, because I don't see any sevara to differentiate between houses based on who the owner is. Mezuzah is (lich'orah) a chovas cheftza, and the house is not left-handed! (See http://tinyurl.com/y9btfa9c , who cites R Chaim Brisker, Stencil #3) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/2017 6:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes >> are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of >> the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an >> educational thing"? > > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let > alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply that it's not just casual reading? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170716193026.GA17994@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that : imply that it's not just casual reading? to strengthen the point, that "we" includes Sepharadim, who don't make berakhos on minhagim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 19:16:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28c39ae9-0df9-89c0-ea06-a5e1b0b700a7@sero.name> On 16/07/17 15:20, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let >> alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. > > But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply > that it's not just casual reading? It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a missed haftara. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:42:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The problem with OU DE In-Reply-To: References: <1500310874499.90870@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170718214244.GA27595@aishdas.org> On 7/17/2017 7:03 PM, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: > Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a > Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel > bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is > that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not > simultaneously. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote: : Why not? Bateil is bateil. See Chullin 11b. Dagim that "alu" into a qe'ara of meat may be eaten with milchig. But going on a plate of meat -- what does that mean? Does it mean cooking? Ashkenazim hold, "'alu' -- aval lo nisbashlu". It's na"t bar na"t. The Tur, the YD 95, the BY's discussion of the Rivan and Tosafos, Rama YD s' 2, the Shakh s"q 3, and the AhS s' 5,11-15 assert as much halakhah lema'aseh. The way you treat bitul, there would be no such thing as nosein ta'am. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:24:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: <596E7C94.5030109@schnurassociates.com> Our K'vasikin minyan at the Young Israel of Ave k in Flatbush, K & East 29, (45 minutes before HaNetz on Shabbos and YT, 30 minutes on cholo shel moed and RH), reads from a klaf only al pi HaGra and only the baal k'riah reads while everyone else just listens and answers awmen (no BHUS) -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos > on the other side? Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it on the right side of the one who enters." And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 16:47:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:47:22 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: R Akiva Miller asked - why can a horse not be Shechted? A horse cannot be Shechted the same way that a G cannot perform Shechitah. Shechitah is not a mechanical action performed to meet certain criteria - Shechitah requires the right person, the right animal and the proper action. The Mishneh Chullin 72b asks a Q we would never ask, in fact it takes a very long time to actually read and make sense of the Mishneh, so counter intuitive is its premise. Why is it that a horse is a Neveilah even if it is Shechted whereas a cow which is Shechted is not a Neveilah in spite of it being a Tereifa? In our mind, the non-Kosher status of a Tereifa is a consequence of its ritual blemish which in no way affects the Shechitah; of course the Shechitah should prevent the animal becoming a Neveilah. But that is not how the Mishneh sees things - the Mishneh understands that the Tereifa status of the cow invalidates the Shechitah - it is, in the Mishneh's mind, equivalent to Shechting a horse. The Mishneh answers that Yesh BeMino Shechitah - meaning, although the animal itself ought to be deemed not Shechted, nevertheless as a species it has an association with Shechitah so the Shechitah will, in spite of being imperfect, prevent it becoming a Neveilah. And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. R Micha already noted that this touches upon the [in]famous bar-mitzvah Pshettel of R Chaim. But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The Gemara [Chullin 113] requires a special Ribbuy to teach that there is an Issur to cook premature born cow with milk Gedi LeRabbos Es HaShellil. Why? Why might we think it is not like a regular cow? The Tiferes YaAkov explains that such an animal has no Issur Cheilev, Chullin 75a, which is unsurprising considering that it is not a BeHeimah, so we may well have argued there is no Issur BBCh; KMLan that it is deemed to be Bassar for the Issur of BBCh. Now think about this - a Jew may not cook nor eat BBCh If a Yid however is about to eat Cheilev, which he may not cook with milk since it is deemed to be Bassar, we cannot warn him that he is transgressing the Issur of eating BBCh. Why? Because Ein Issur Chal Al Issur - once the Issur of Cheilev is already in place the later Issur of BBCh cannot take hold. Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Which seems to indicate that although it is a Neveilah, there is no Issur to eat a prematurely born cow. [To be sure we would need to verify that it has not entered its ninth month.] Hence my Q - Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:23:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, > let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps "minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes? > Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read > at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is that we're supposed to be doing? In a later post, he wrote: > It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's > takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that > one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias > hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this > from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it > must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a > missed haftara. I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read. Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:31:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> On 7/19/2017 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay > when the haftarah is read improperly? I don't think the question works. Consider: we have a chiyuv to daven shmoneh esrei. But there are different girsaot, so clearly, exact wording isn't critical to fulfilling the requirement. So we already see that there are different levels of chiyuvim, and that we are more medayek on exact wording on some levels than others. Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to something like haftara than there is for Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719101803.GA11560@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos :> on the other side? : Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it : on the right side of the one who enters." : And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And : there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Besheim the Mordechai. The Shakh) says this is true even if the lefty lives alone or the whole family is lefty. Because mezuzah is a chiyuv on the house, not like tefillin's chiyuv, which is on the guf. The Be'eir Heiteiv quotes the Shakh, adding "vekhein nohagim". The AhS (s' 5) gives multiple reasons: 1- A house is made for anyone who lives there, not this specific person. Which might be the same explanation, might not. Seems related to the fact that we do not take mezuzos down when the next owner is Jewish. 2- He contrasts to tefillin, where the pasuq uses the word "yadkha" and we darshen "yad keihah", whereas "beisekha" is used to darshen the din that it's direction from which one enters. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 05:46:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84213f099d8841fb92a75e4a8d758038@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 04:27:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's > surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" > when it comes to something like haftara than there is for > Torah. We seem to agree that it *IS* possible to read the haftarah IMproperly, in contrast to R' Zev Sero, who wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be > read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't > be invalid. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 06:52:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> On 18/07/17 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas > chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, But that is key. What is a chiyuv, or rather in Hebrew a chovah? As anyone who's read an Ivrit bank statement or balance sheet can tell you, it's a liability. "Lotzeis y'dei chovah", or "being yotzei", means discharging that liability. If there is no chovah then there is nothing from which to exit; one cannot speak of being yotzei something that is not a chiyuv. Now krias hatorah is not a chovah on any individual. If one missed leining one shabbos one needn't make it up. Even if there are 10 men who missed it, and therefore could make it up if they wanted to, they don't. But it is a chovah on the tzibbur; if for some reason an entire community was unable to read the Torah one week they must make it up the next week by reading two sedros. If they don't then their liability has not been discharged. When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". Of course if it is to be read it should be read correctly. *Anything* that is read should be read correctly; there is no virtue in reading carelessly, as if one's words are of no importance so it doesn't matter if one butchers them. But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, and since not reading it leaves no undischarged liability on the community therefore a bad reading doesn't do so either. > Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim > correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is > that we're supposed to be doing? Suppose my argument is incorrect, and there *is* some obligation which the community must discharge? How long a reading counts? We know that the gemara's mention of 21 pesukim is merely a recommendation, since we routinely disregard it. So how small *can* we make it? By analogy with krias hatorah we can say that fewer than three pesukim is not a reading at all. But maybe the analogy is inapt, and the takana is fulfilled by *any* reading from the nevi'im, even just one pasuk, or perhaps even a single phrase. After all the whole takanah is simply in memory of the time when krias hatorah was banned, so we read nevi'im instead; so perhaps even a very small reading is enough to evoke this memory. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, >>> This illustrates why I suggested avoiding words like "chiyuv". Is our goal to be in a status of "no worse than not having read it at all"? Surely not! If we would be satisfied with such, then why do we bother reading it? Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I don't understand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:36:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: <51a89e09-5077-e733-156f-9027c6f70dc9@sero.name> On 19/07/17 13:20, Akiva Miller wrote: > > Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting > someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or > whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems > to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I > don't understand. I'm saying that it's not *required*, and therefore it becomes a highly situational question of balancing the reader's sensitivity and the tircha detzibura against a desire to hear a haftara that doesn't grate on the nerves. There's no "I'm sorry but if we don't correct him we won't be yotzei". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 12:43:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719194312.GA13614@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. : I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of : him that is generally accepted as accurate? Mequbalim in Itali had a mesorah from the Rama miFano (late 16th - early 17th cent) that beards were only appropriate in EY. The Ramchal's lack of beard was mentioned in the charges against him when he was drummed out of Italy for teaching a very messianic Qabbalah too soon after Shabbeta Zvi. Someone once showed me a Chasam Sofer and a Chidah which refer to this practice. But I couldn't find it. Meanwhile, I found Gilyon Maharshah (R' Shelomo Eiger), at the end of YD 181, says that kamah gedolei hamequbalim, talmidei haAri, who cut their beards with scissors. So, scissors is no my default assumption, which means they probably had some visible stuble, if not enough to qualify as a "beard". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 02:09:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> References: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> Message-ID: <19840673-e64a-c7e5-41b9-92f64dd10daf@zahav.net.il> Ikkar ha-din, someone who can't properly enunciate Hebrew letters isn't allowed to pray from the amud, never mind read the Torah or Haftorah. I don't know if there is a need to correct someone who consistently makes mistakes but there is certainly no reason to allow him to read at all if he can't do it properly. As an aside: one of my rabbis said that RYBS didn't correct someone in class who made mistakes reading the Gemara text but if someone made a mistake with a pasuk in the Gemara, then the Rav let him have it. Ben On 7/19/2017 12:31 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot > more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to > something like haftara than there is for Torah. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:11:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then > I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant. I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe "tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also. Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors, including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria Message-ID: RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing about the nature of the original obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 24 11:53:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah Message-ID: <20170724185345.GA20358@aishdas.org> In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61) discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads "leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving her a real gett. The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because "almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other misspellings that have only one possible intent. I was wondering if this is too fanciful: Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah" could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often given given in CE. Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could cross the readers mind. Maybe? Or too creative? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 06:47:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 12:40:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 08:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721@aishdas.org> One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 09:50:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:36:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:34:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:31:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:13:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 12:10:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:21:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:49:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> References: <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 23:38:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and historical. He brings parts of the midrashim about Avraham Avinu's early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for any other reason than to understand the historical facts. Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 26 July 2017 08:49 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Washing Clothes During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 2. The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 3. Menorah on Arch of Titus (Micha Berger via Avodah) 4. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 5. Showering During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 6. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 7. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 8. Re: alma vs. almah (elazar teitz via Avodah) 9. Re: alma vs. almah (Micha Berger via Avodah) 10. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 11. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/494286688/Ohr-Somayach-Logo-150sq_bigger.jpg] Showering During the Nine Days?! by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz tinyurl.com YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger , avodah The General Discussion Area for Avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"; format="flowed" On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , llevine at stevens.edu, Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 From: elazar teitz via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: elazar teitz , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:13:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? Message-ID: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:14:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: From "Religion Within Reason" by Steven Cahn: "To have faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . To describe someone as a person of faith suggests that the individual is strong-willed, fearless, and unwavering." Question to all - what percentage of the frum world have no doubts? How many don't think about it at all? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 05:11:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering during the Nine days In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: see: Is it permissible to shower during the Nine Days? http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/is-it-permissible-to-shower-during-nine.html [or -mi] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:09:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? I am in the middle of R' Mordechai Torczyner's (CC-ed, please include him in replies) shiurim on ribis. http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&category=0,234696 In particular, shiurim no.s 3-5 are about refunds. It's under 2 hrs total, and if you know something of the sugya, 1.25x speed is doable. The first lines of the source sheet to those shiurim is "Lamah yeish chiyuv lehachzir ribis?" http://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=529082 If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:17:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih but not a tikkun for the lav) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 19:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Torczyner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim >> was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. >> If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would >> be subject to maaser kesafim. ... > Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is > something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih > but not a tikkun for the lav) > KT Hi R' Joel, Indeed, the Ritva's view is that ribbis, once paid, belongs to the creditor. The creditor is obligated to pay it back, but the money is his for purposes including Kiddushin. Other applications include whether the borrower has the power to forgive the repayment, and whether the creditor's heirs have a duty to repay. Kol tuv, Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 10:19:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:19:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c1d64f4e4564ec7b59a1d187400d9bd@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." ============================== I'd appreciate specific examples ============================== Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== I finally tracked down a copy of the book and read through it-I?d simply say that one must underline heavily the statement ?the best of what was known to them in their time? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:09:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> I read Rachel Levmore's "Decentralizing Religious Authority" at Teaser: Overview Orthodox Jewish life used to be a simpler matter for those who wanted to lead one. There was an unspoken system in place. One could approach the local rabbi with a question. If he didn't know, scholars higher up in the "hierarchy" could weigh in until the question reached the "gadol hador." Despite the plurality of approaches which always existed, there was a definitive address whose opinion would be accepted by all (or almost all). Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone. The present circumstances, which have witnessed a breakdown of authority in general society coupled with the absence of an uncontested authoritative Torah scholar, has led to absurd situations. Lacking agreed-upon "gedolim" today, a void exists... Without any proper halakhic discourse between various rabbis who deem themselves to be leaders (even if they lack followers)... And so on, with a pretty sociological take on the problem, and how it applies to controversy over the halachic prenup. As is usual for me, I'm intrigued by the theoretical meta-issue. Given that we've entered an era that there is a dirth of gedolim whose rulings are followed across multiple communities and eidot, is there a significant change to how halakhah is done? And I'm not saying this is entirely about nisqatnu hadoros, and how today's gedolim aren't like those of my youth. Some of it is also the effects of universal education, google, social-media cynicism and echo chamber, and the social trends that cause the popularity of such social media, and other societal changes that made people less likely to respect authority that isn't fully in agreement with what they decided the truth should be. Returning to snipping from the article: The Internet is not the forum for halakhic rows. Rabbinic tradition prescribes that halakhic disputes be conducted in depth, not superficially through "virtual" statements in cyberspace. Proper procedure dictates that rabbinic forums be held where differences of opinions can be [19]discussed face to face. If that is not possible, then [20]scholarly books are written or [21]rabbinic articles published. Alarmist attempts to create fear among innocent lay-people cannot be considered credible halakhic writing. And: [I]t is not for naught that the Mishnah directs us to choose who is our rabbi: [24]aseh lekha rav. It is your responsibility as a God-fearing Jew to determine which rabbi you will follow, according to your perception of his righteousness, scholarship, and derekh--philosophy of Jewish life. For a variety of reasons, it should be a rabbi who lives in the same community as you, not least since he would then be familiar with the challenges and facts of your life. In the United States, the Rabbinical Council of America has assembled an impressive body of rabbinic figures... Visible links ... 19. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-plea-from-Jerusalem-to-the-worlds-Orthodox-rabbis-483210 20. https://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%94.html?id=FpsqQwAACAAJ 24. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en My first stab at answering my own question is to wonder how long halakhah has been centralized around a few globally known gedolim. >From the geonim until the late 19th century, were there any? And even when there was a few posqim the whole world turned to (eg the geonim), how many question did they go to the gedolim for? Wouldn't the size of the world back then mean that most questions were far more local, with the mara de'asra having much more of a final say, with consensus being more of a regional thing? If halachic authority is being decentralized, is that something new, or a reversion to the norm, to how non-Sanhedrin (or as the Rambam would have it, post-talmudic) halakhah supposed to work? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:19:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:32:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170728203214.GA6178@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:38:18AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and : historical... But not the fantastical ones. Zev and I are arguing over two things: 1- What that includes. Zev believes that the inclusion of miracles does not make a medrash fantastical. And in fact to believe so be apiqursus. (Actually, Zev said the believer would be an apiqoreis; but the question whether every believer in apiqursus is necessarily an apiqoreis is far afield. So I'll still to this less controversial subset of his claim.) I disagree. The Rambam associates nissim with nevu'ah. Someone who lacks the yedi'ah to get one isn't going to be around to witness the other. Therefore, aggadic stories of miracles placed after Tanakh are fantastical. While Hashem could still in principle perform nissim, the Rambam believes He wouldn't. (Even when the story is told of a member of chazal and their level of ruach haqodesh.) 2- Is there a default? Zev understands that the default is to take a medrash historically, unless it must be ruled out. Again, I disagree. Medrashim are described as metaphors and riddles. The story and its historical content just isn't an issue. You can't assume anything about a medrash being historical or ahistorical qua medrash. A good bit of history and a good tall tale can be used equally well for teaching by metaphor. Implying, you would need outside reason to assume one or the other. Which is how the Rambam then says that if the story doesn't fit how the world works physically, metaphysicall or theologically -- ie what that translation I googled up called "fantastic" -- insisting its historical when it can't be is silly. So: : Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are : other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could : attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Be happy, no one in this conversation does. In my understanding of Zev's view, the Rambam says that any medrash that isn't impossible (and nissim are possible) should be assumed to be historical. In my view, wondering about the historicity of the story misses the whole point of medrash. But if the story does not fit the way Hashem runs the universe -- which according to the Rambam would include miracle stories happening after Malakhi, and many of the stories before -- assume it is ahistorical. : early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at : the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for : any other reason than to understand the historical facts. The Rambam there has outside reason to believe that medrashic description; it fit what the Nabatean Agriculture implied abot the birth of their religion. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:00:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 05:00:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: True, especially in the MO/DL world. The site had an article a few months ago about how the MO/DL simply aren't looking for gedolim or they define the role of a gadol in way that strips him of much of this supposed authority. Ben On 7/28/2017 10:19 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 14:51:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From ?Religion Within Reason? by Steven Cahn: ?To have > faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes > beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . It depends on what he means by "putting aside" one's doubts. If "putting aside" means that one does have doubts, but denies this fact, and acts as if his faith was complete, this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and in general, A Bad Thing. It is comparable to one who feigns humility; the odds of an eventual implosion are too high. Rather, one must be honest about his doubts or questions, and work on resolving them. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:12:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Math behind kulan chayav Message-ID: <20170730031250.GA2671@aishdas.org> "Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince." Lachlan J. Gunn, et al. Proceedings of The Royal Society A. To be published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00900 Magazine article on said paper (H/T R/Dr Josh Backon): https://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html This paper focuses on the case of identifying a criminal in a police line-up, archeological evidence, and crypography testing, but I'll just use the first as an example. Sometimes a line-up is like picking out an apple out of a group of bananas. But usually, there is measurable probability of error. Whether it's 48% for a criminal who runs through the crime scene or the probability of mistaking one's kidnapper, there is always some probability of error. Now, what's the probability that no one makes that error? If 10 people unanimously identify the same person, is it more likely that no one made the rror, or that there is a systemic bias leading people to select the same member of the line-up? This paper shows the math (and has plots for various probabilities of error). It takes far fewer people than you'd think before a unanimous finding becomes suspicious. And the paper even cites the din as precedent: However, this is not necessarily the case and more confirmations can surprisingly disimprove our confidence that the defendant has been correctly identified as the perpetrator. This type of possibility was recognised intuitively in ancient times. Under ancient Jewish law [13], one could not be unanimously convicted of a capital crime -- it was held that the absence of even one dissenting opinion among the judges indicated that there must remain some form of undiscovered exculpatory evidence. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 07:48:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20). I am attending a Bris on Tisha B'Av. May I say "Mazal Tov" to the baby's father? If I meet a sick person on Tisha B'Av, may I wish him a "Refuah Shleimah" (a full recovery)? Are these also prohibited forms of greeting? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l rules that Mazal Tov for a recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B'Av since it is considered a blessing and not a greeting (Dirshu M.B. Beiurim and Musofim 554:63 citing Halichos Shlomo Bein HaMitzorim Vol. 15 Orchos Halacha 30). However, if at all possible, one should wait for a different day to express this Mazal Tov (Chut Sheini Vol. 2 p. 327). Our minhag is to perform a Bris on Tisha B'Av after the Kinos are completed, even if it is before Chatzos (mid-day), because of Zerizim makdimim l'Mitzvos, those who serve Hashem with alacrity, do mitzvos as quickly as possible (Mechaber, Rama 559:7 and Mishna Berurah ibid s.k. 26). Rav Shlomo Zalman was of the opinion that one can certainly say "Mazal Tov" at the Bris even before Chatzos (ibid). Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l however rules that the Mazal Tov for the Bris should only be said after Chatzos (Dirshu M.B. ibid citing Shmaitza D'Moshe p. 431). Although "Sholom Aleichim" should not be said to an Avel (one who is in mourning), the Gesher HaChaim (21:67:7) permits wishing "Refuah Shleima" to an Avel who is ill, since this is considered a blessing and not a greeting. For the same reason it is permitted on Tisha B'Av to wish a "Refuah Shleima" to a person who is ill (Dirshu M.B. ibid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 10:24:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:48pm GMT, Professor L. Levine quoted today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis: : Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" : "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend : is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20)... I'm going to use this to share the quick thought in my most recent blog post: The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. Tzom qal! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 11:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 31/07/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say > "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the > table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time that day is a fast rather than a yomtov. Though we still hold out hope that that was last year. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time : that day is a fast rather than a yomtov... That was obviously my intent. HOWEVER... We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent ge'ulah. So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust. After all, a commemoration of the ge'ulah after Galus Edom would be far more compelling. (I mentioned this to someone after Maariv, and he suggested that since neither July or August line up with our months that well, maybe it'll be Tish'ah beLeo. I don't think it has the same commemorative quality.) -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 03:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Menuchah Schwat via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. > So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it > Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust... Tisha baChamishi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 06:27:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 8/1/2017 6:01 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used to be a day of mourning?" Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 08:40:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:27:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: :> We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent :> ge'ulah. ... : Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which : is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha : B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used : to be a day of mourning?" What's that "um" about? The month names being Babylonian is a given sitting behind the sentence you quote. It's an often referred to Y-mi, RH 1:2 (vilna 6a) "De'amar R' Chanina: shemos chadashim alu beyadam miBavel." Then going on to mention some pre-Bavli month names found in Tanakh - Risanim, Bul, Ziv, showing how that all changes in Nechemia and Esther. Sure, when talking about 9 beAv the fast, we may well teach them we called it 9 beAv. But, as I suggested in the OP, maybe after the ge'ulah from Galus Edom, we'll do the same with the Julian / Gregorian month names. It will, after all, be a much more momentus ge'ulah, being final and lasting. If Anshei Keneses haGedolah thought it was appropriate to commemorate one ge'ulah in this manner, perhaps we should assume al achas kamah vekamah the end of our current galus would be commemorated similarly. On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:01:50PM +0300, Menuchah Schwat wrote: : Tisha baChamishi That's ambiguous. The chumash uses "bachodesh" to be clearer about which is the day count, and which is the month. Even if the month number is a cardinal ("-i" - fifTH) and the day is an ordinal (no suffix) the way you wrote them. You don't explain *why* you think we'd go back to the biblical system, rather than commemorating the ge'ulah from Galus Edom. After all, even the nevi'im didn't stick to the original numbered months. And I think my suggested parallel makes /some/ sense, if not necessarily what the Sanhedrin will end up deciding. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kinos: Hashem as Spaceman? In-Reply-To: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In Kinah #7 (Aholi Asher Ta'avta), the Kalir wrote "v'nihyeita ketas bechalal". To our ears this evokes images of loneliness and isolation, of someone surrounded by vacuum, light-years from anywhere and anyone, but what did "chalal" even mean to people with a Ptolemaic model (if that) of the universe? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:34:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 14:34:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av Message-ID: I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana ---------------------- I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it even is one), I think you are doing OK! -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 15:04:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <187d2f.769a1cbd.46b254d0@aol.com> From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah " >> There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. << Kol tuv, Ilana >>>>>> What you did instinctively was the right thing to do. Here is what Eliyahu Kitov says in _The Book of Our Heritage_: --quote-- It is prohibited to greet one's friend or acquaintance on Tisha B'Av, and it is even prohibited to say "Good morning." If, however, one is greeted, he should answer in a low tone, in order not to arouse resentment." --end quote-- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 21:51:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:51:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed Message-ID: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand that not everyone agrees with this position). Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can determine where the issur actually is? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 23:57:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB, quoting Rachel Levmore: > Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox > Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. > Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, > Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef were still alive and active. And if someone writes a similar article in another few decades, perhaps some of today's great poskim will have been added posthumously to the list... Not to be cynical, but could it be that one of the factors that makes a gadol universally recognized and accepted across Orthodoxy is that he is no longer among the living? Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 04:18:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:18:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed In-Reply-To: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> References: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 02/08/17 00:51, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har > Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess > information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can > certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand > that not everyone agrees with this position). > > Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur > karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can > determine where the issur actually is? *Any* case where we got new information. Take the classic case of two pieces of fat, one shuman and one chelev, but one doesn't know which is which, and then one later finds out. Before finding out both were assur; if one ate one of them beshogeg one brings an asham and the other piece remains assur. Once the new information is acquired the shuman becomes permitted, and if it transpired that one ate the chelev one must now bring a chatas. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 05:07:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from the OU: > The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra > Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as > greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" > (Mechaber 554:20). ... ... > > Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l rules that Mazal Tov for a > recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B?Av since it is > considered a blessing and not a greeting. ... ... I honestly don't understand the distinction that causes a "greeting" to be assur, while allowing a "blessing" to be mutar. I would think that "good morning" is a blessing. Aren't we praying that the other person's morning will be a good one? Perhaps the distinction is in the degree of kavana with which the "good morning" is given and received. After all, if it were said as a blessing, and received as one, then wouldn't we respond to the "good morning" with something like "amen"? Perhaps we can prove "good morning" to be a mere greeting, by pointing out that the response is usually a perfunctory repeat of the words "good morning", rather than anything serious. In this light, I confidently suggest that "How are you?" is definitely a greeting, because usually no one expects a response other than "okay" or "fine". What of the Mechaber's halacha of "Shalom Aleichem"? Surely we would agree that "Shalom Aleichem" is a blessing, no? After all, the response to "Shalom Aleichem" is "Aleichem Shalom", and I suspect (YMMV) that this is usually sincere rather than perfunctory. This brings us to the very core of this halacha: RSZA is drawing a line between greeting and blessing, and his halacha about Mazel Tov makes no sense (to me) unless "Shalom Aleichem" is defined as the prototypical *greeting*, and *not* a blessing. I can't imagine why this would be so, unless the Mechaber already felt that "Shalom Aleichem" was usually said perfunctorially. And that's sad. Can anyone offer a different analysis of these various phrases? Finally, it seems to me that "perfunctory" is a good summary of why we can bring American money into a bathroom, despite the words "In God We Trust" being on them: Those words have become a mere perfunctory slogan, and are no longer a real statement of faith. But if we have downgraded "Shalom Aleichem" from blessing to greeting with that same logic, then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? Do any other poskim make this distinction (either in Hilchos Tish'a B'av, or in Hilchos Aveilus, or for that matter in Hilchos What Not To Do Before Shacharis) between a greeting and a blessing? I'd love to see it defined more clearly. (There was a point in my life when if I'd sneeze and someone would say "God bless you", my response was "Amen". But I stopped that fairly quickly as people tended to find my response quite jarring. Maybe "God bless you" is also in the category of a perfunctory greeting that should not be done on Tish'a B'av?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 06:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170802132730.GB27820@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:57:08AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack : of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef : were still alive and active... In the US, recognition of R' Henkin and RMF were near-universal. And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. In Israel, I think the most recent candidates are pre-Shas ROY and RSZA. Although ROY's pesaqim are distinctly Sepharadi, I think it's commonly accepted that Yabia Omer is one of the few sefarim written in my lifetime people will be learning centuries from now. My mention of pre-Shas points to something I think is one of the causes. The search for "daas Torah" on political and societal matters makes enemies and cynics from among those who disagree. As for RSZA, RALichtenstein notes that he posessed a gedulah different in kind, not just degree [inevitable nisqatnu hadoros], than those we've looked up to since. I highly recommend "Im Da'at Ein, Manhigut Minayin?" . In it RAL defends da'as Torah as a doctrine, but questions if anyone since RSZA has been qualified to have it. To quote my own pitgam from past posts: A gadol is tall enough to see over our fences. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 09:05:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Eleazar Hakalir Message-ID: Yesterday during the fast, I was reading about R. Eleazar Hakalir, and was struck by the fact that historians aren't sure when he lived, with some saying he lived during Mishnaic times and others saying he lived as late as the 11th century. I realize that pinpointing dates during this time period is difficult, but a 900 year swing seems very unusual. Is anyone familiar with any recent papers or articles that attempts to zero in on the real date when this poet lived? Any additional info appreciated. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 18:25:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170803012513.GC16841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: :> I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, :> but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk :> hurting his feelings. : I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it : even is one), I think you are doing OK! I am wondering whether cheerfully (rather than pro-forma, yotzei-zain, replying so as not to offend) greeting someone in this situation despite 9 beAv is an instance of huterah or dekhuyah. (Thus overanalyzing your parenthetic remark.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 4 13:52:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: ?A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha *minyanim* questioned my saying "*y'yasheir kochacha*" to one of the *olim* (FWIW, I was the *bal qorei*) and, a few min.s later, brought to the *bimah* an Artscroll-*dinim* paragraph (from the back of its 9Av *siddur*) about not greeting someone; my response, as you might guess, was that "*y'yasheir* /*yeeshar kochacha*" was not a greeting. A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "*Shalom aleichem*", like M'gilas Rus' "*H' imachem* // *y'varechcha H'*", is also a blessing, but the "problem"? comes up when it's utilized as a greeting. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 5 23:33:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:33:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and fish blood? we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking liquid and almond milk? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within > their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 04:29:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <221F9E1E-C833-4DA1-83A2-577056D221BF@cox.net> R? Akiva wrote: ?.then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? I would say the reason is that Shalom is one of God?s Names. There was once a study done on people?s responses to ?How are you?? The respondent was supposed to answer in the negative. So instead of saying ?fine, thank you,? the response would be either ?terrible,? ?awful,? ?not good,? etc. and guess what? Something like 90% would not even have realized the negative response. In other words, it is very perfunctory when someone greets someone else in a normal setting. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 09:55:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table > and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher > but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. > What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and > fish blood? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? > we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table > at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond > milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking > liquid and almond milk? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring white milk looking liquid to the meaty dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? I suspect that in both cases, you are noting the explicit prohibition against doing these things and then you are presuming that these prohibitions apply *only* to these specific foods. Then, having made that presumption, you are asking why this distinction exists. I suggest that this is an improper procedure. It would be more correct to note the prohibition about these specific things, and then to *ASK* whether the prohibition also applies to similar things. You might find that the prohibition *does* extend to other things: Example #2: Soy milk. When pareve coffee creamers first became easily available, they were all soy-based. Yet the hashgachos warned us to serve it only in the original container, precisely because of the halacha you cite. Example #1: Suppose you have a lightly-cooked steak in your plate. Some "red blood looking liquid" is leaking out of the meat onto the plate, and is absorbed into the mashed potatoes. There's no issur against those potatoes. I'm pretty sure you can even mix it up into the potatoes deliberately, or dip your bread into it and eat it. But can you pour it out of the plate, into a glass and *drink* it? I don't know. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 13:44:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Lecture from Herzog Yemei Iyun Message-ID: <25bb89bf-b093-17da-6af7-7c80276a5d1a@zahav.net.il> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXeFDdchKY One of the lectures at this year's Yemei Iyun at Herzog: Rav Bazaq (Har Etzion) and Rav Kashtiel (Yeshivat Eli) explain a story in Nach (Isha HaShunamite) each in his way. In doing so, they try to demonstrate the differences in approach between what is called "Tanach b'Gova Einayim" and "HaKav". According to a story that I read about this lecture, this was the first time, after years and years of fighting (sometimes extremely fierce fighting) between proponents of each approach, that two people got together and gave a lesson together. There have been conferences where each side explains why their approach is good and the other side is wrong, but this is the first time that two people taught together. The lectures are in conversational Hebrew. Besides the demonstration of the different approaches, the lectures themselves about the story are fantastic. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 22:20:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:20:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom haAtzamut. Ben On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Micha Berger wrote: > >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. > > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? > > Akiva Miller \ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 07:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> References: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170807140514.GC15062@aishdas.org> : On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > R' Micha Berger wrote: : >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within : >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. : > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom : haAtzamut. I knew he was capable of it because I know several such stories. In the future, try to remember everything I wrote over all of Avodah's 19 years' history. It would save me time. I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning something that non-intuitive. Including when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 18:45:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:45:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with > the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning > something that non-intuitive. I was trying to come up with a snappy comeback, but the truth is that I simply have a rotten memory. Or, perhaps, the non-intuitive stuff is lost more easily, precisely because the anti-intuitiveness makes it more difficult for the brain to reconstruct the chain of links. We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. > when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. > RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if > it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." I wish I had been aware of these shades of gray when I was younger. Thank you for sharing. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 07:29:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:54PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is : how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is : the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult : to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical reasons given: 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish model.) 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the community. (The usual Chassidish model.) 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from DT in general when he left Agudah.) #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and not necessarily personal ones. Here we're talking about halakhah. So, I'd like to see if we can discuss the flipside of the discussion. Rather than asking about the heteronomy of following gedolei haposqim and why today's posqim seem to be failing getting that kind of fealty from certain large segments of the masses, what about the autonomy end? We have a very literate masses. More people can hit the primary sources themselves. And for those who can't, oir lack the patience to, there are more secondary and tertiary sources available in laaz than ever before. Joys of computerized publishing, which has made producing a book cheaper than ever. In this world, how much autonomy should a sho'el assume for himself? Which questions don't need asking? I presume a wide variety of opinion; I am more interested in various rationales than in any particular answer. What about the LOR -- do you have thoughts about when he should field the question, and when he should punt to his own rav or to a gadol? And does the ease at which anyone can be reached anywhere on the globe matter? Universal education, telecom, the web's ability to provide instand "research" are all bottom-up reasons our authority is being decentralized. With little to do on those elegable to assume that authority vs those of the past. Although the ease of LH and motzi sheim ra about those rabbanim with today's tech does enter into it to, r"l. If no one can become a navi in his childhood neighborhood, today's world makes it harder and harder to leave that effect. My own feeling is that anyone of East European ancestry who was not higi'ah lehora'ah who faces a new (for them) situation and doesn't get a sense of consensus from the Chayei Adam, Qitzur, MB and AhS should be asking a she'eilah. Notice that shows my own bias against popularist guides. Unless said guide was written by or recommended by one's poseiq as a viable resource. And in terms of autonomy vs heteronomy, I would be seeking a poseiq who (1) convinces me of the soundness of his reasoning; and (2) is willing to work with my givens on things like hashkafah and beliefs about metzi'us, where there are no rules of pesaq. As in RMF's pesaq about Hallel on YhA. (Tangent: Notice that there is little connection between pesaq and hashkafah on this one. RYBS, the Zionist, adhered to a meta-halakhah in which the barriers to saying Hallel are high, and came out against. As a compromise for LORs whose mispallelim won't tolerate that, he would advise the rav to pasqen that they omit the berakhah. Whereas RMF told Zionists that leshitasam, it would be appropriate to say Hellal WITH a berakhah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 08:45:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Kashrus of Braekel Message-ID: <20170808154508.GA12433@aishdas.org> They're now importing to EY from Europe a new breed of chicken, the braekel. See http://www.baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=37&ARTICLE_ID=90778 ... Members of the Eida Charedis' Vaad Shechita, prominent rabbonim and kashrus experts gathered in the home of Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita to determine if a new chicken, imported from Europe, has a kosher status. The discussion lasted for four hours! The new bird is called Braekel, and according to HaGaon HaRav Sternbuch, the bird is not kosher. However, in Bnei Brak, HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita has ruled it is kosher. The chicken was raised in Europe in an area void of Jews and Rav Sternbuch feels it lacks the `mesora' required. Wikipedia reports that it is indeed Gallus gallus domesticus, actual chicken in scientific taxonomy. And The Brakel is not cultivated for its meat, but merely for its egg-laying qualities. The breed is capable of producing 180 to 200 white eggs a year. This isn't remotely like the leghorn, a breed of chicken that has 2 "thumbs" and 2 other toes per claw, rather than the usual for kosher birds -- 1 "thumb" and 3. And it's accepted as kosher, in fact, the source of most of our eggs here in the states. But the breakel has normal simanim. For that matter, according to some pesaqim about why we can eat turkey (the context in which the kashrus of leghorn chickens most often comes up) we even accept Meleagris gallopavo, turkey, as being within the mesorah for chickens and they aren't even in the same genus! Third wiki-note, commenting on the two subtypes of braekel chicken that have since interbread into one: In the UK, USA and Australia, however, one can still find descendants of the Kempische Brakel under its old name 'Campine'. The Campine has evolved differently from the Brakel. The most noticeable difference is the hen-feathering of the rooster and the lower weight. We in the US are treating a bird that evolved (nishtanah hateva, if you prefer) from the breakel as kosher; no one requires checking if an egg is campine or not. It's not even like the mesorah has been silent; even if each breed of G. gallus domesticus needs it's own mesorah. So, lo zakhisi lehavin RMS's reluctance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 09:27:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> References: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <69647634-1f0b-8686-3b9b-f1fe2958ab37@sero.name> On 08/08/17 10:29, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning > to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical > reasons given: > > 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and > ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish > model.) > > 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the > community. (The usual Chassidish model.) > > 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would > ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to > Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the > current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and > doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, > and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from > DT in general when he left Agudah.) > > #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and > not necessarily personal ones. #4 All true knowledge is in the Torah, and finding it is a matter of making non-obvious connections. Therefore someone who has absorbed enough of it to do so can find the correct answer to anything, though he may not be able to explain how he did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 12:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hebrew manuscripts Message-ID: A database of ancient Hebrew manuscripts is now available at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLIS/en/ManuScript/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 18:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel Message-ID: . This past October (in Avodah 34:130) I mentioned a practice that I've seen growing in recent years, that of making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. I was learning about the issur of eating a large seudah on Erev Shabbos, and I came across something that seems very relevant to that practice. Form the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod Hashabbos" writes: "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 21:21:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:21:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142a02db-9198-65c3-9f5d-1b882fc5f525@sero.name> On 08/08/17 21:24, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of > appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, > making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." However, "to`ameha chayim zachu". Tasting a little of the Shabbos dishes, as opposed to gorging oneself on them, is very much kevod Shabbos, to increase the anticipation, like a sneak preview. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 11:58:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the : reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with : which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod : Hashabbos" writes: : "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of : appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, : making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." These motives have a nadka mina. If one fills up Fri afternoon on food they don't enjoy (perhaps it's healthful) or wouldn't eat in a formal or celebratory setting, one is running afoul of the SA's sevara, but not the PM's. In contrast, having significant amounts of Shabbos-appropriate food but not to the point of ruining one's appetite by the time maariv is over would be a problem according to the PM, but not the SA's sevara. Zev mentioned the case of tasting Shabbos food. The MB 250:2 uses the word "lit'om". The Machzor Vitri cites a lost Y-mi and invokes "to'ameha chaim zakhu" -- I think it's specifically te'imah. As in, less than a kezayis, no berakhah, not really eating. (Which is why I wrote last paragraph about "significant amounts".) It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. BUT.... The whole point of chulent is to have hot food in Shabbos lunch, to fulfill the obligation (SA OC 271:3) of making it the more special meal. (Rather than Fri night dinner. See Shaarei Teshuvah #1.) The AhS says one is not obligated to abstain from special Shabbos-lunch foods Fri night. But I'm talking about Thu night, altogether before Shabbos. O Seems to me that until someone finds a new "special Shabbos lunch food", Thu night chulent ought to be prohibited! Whereas one SHOULD just taste the chulent on Fri, and it is permitted (but sub-optimal) to have some with Fri night dinner. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 22:14:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:14:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Not just yeshiva guys. It has become a minor trendy thing for all sort of people to travel to Bnei Braq to get chulent. On 8/9/2017 8:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". > My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and > Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment > near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 04:43:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (=?utf-8?B?157XoNeV15fXlCDXqdeR15g=?= via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: The Mishna Brura clearly states that the reason for tasting on erev shabbat is "kedei letaken". This refers to tasting during the cooking process and does not fit with the whole kugel minhag. Menucha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 11:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] publishing trends Message-ID: I'd love to hear any analysis (or guesses) as to what are the percentages of different types of sefarim (both Hebrew and English) being published in the current era, how they differ from those in the past and, most interestingly to me, what are the drivers for these trends? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 15:37:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:37:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Milk, Blood and look alikes Message-ID: I fear that the Halachic posture of *Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to?* although making sense from a narrow perspective, actually invites Halachic disaster, and is quite incorrect. Halacha asserts all is permitted unless it is prohibited. Here is an example in which the Shach seems to assert that Maris Ayin is limited to its narrow description and is not to be expanded according to what makes sense to us. BP, those that have been found within a Shechted cow, require Shechita once they have walked about. Before they have walked about they do not require Shechita. However, Ben PeKuAh can also be created via natural breeding which goes on forever. So we can have a large herd of BP none of which are identifiable as BP. The Mechaber Paskens without qualifying, *until they have walked about* - that the naturally born BP all require Shechita. This would appear to suggest that they require Shechita even before they have walked about. And there is good reason to understand this to be the Halacha, after all in this herd there is absolutely no way to identify them as BP whereas those found in a Shechted mother are readily identified as being BP. And I presume that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, the Shach makes it clear that the decree that requires that they be Shechted applies only after they have walked about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 11 07:15:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Summer and Travel Videos Message-ID: <1502460917652.98832@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y8drmxm3 Kosher Summer and Travel Videos As you prepare to fire up the grill for the summer or hit the road on vacation, countless Kashrut issues arise: Can I cook on a public grill in a park? Can I use a hotel room microwave? How should one pray on an airplane? These commonly asked questions and many more will be answered in our 2017 Kosher summer and travel series. Your esteemed guide through this halachic journey? It's none other than Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of OU Kosher. View the questions and answers below! Can you cook on a BBQ that has previously been used for Non-Kosher meat? Can meat and fish be cooked on the same BBQ? Can you eat cut fruit from an uncertified vendor? Can you buy coffee from a non-kosher establishment or a kiosk? May you purchase salad from an uncertified entity when traveling on the road? What products am I permitted to eat from an ice cream store? What are the Halachos in regards to prayer on an airplane? What are the Kashrut issues with airline meals? Can in-room hotel microwaves be used without kashering? Is it permissible to take antihistamines or other medication without certification? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 13 06:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] piskei rid Message-ID: <591d6b28af34484fac75d4f2918958a9@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The bar ilan database notes that its version is from Yad Ha-Rav Herzog. Does anyone have a copy that can see who authored the footnotes? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 02:06:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 07:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken Message-ID: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. See the above URL for more. See also http://tinyurl.com/yckl2bqj YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 08:23:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From > http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h > Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that > he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. Since when is rabbi M any sort if authority in The USA? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 11:28:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:28:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> This whole thing reminds me of the one-a-generation broohaha over leghorn chickens. Leghorns and braekels are chickens, much the way chihuahuas are dogs, despire being rather unique looking dogs -- or chickens. Like other chickens, they are Gallus gallus domesticus. Not even a remote question of problems interbreeding. Every 20 years or so someone notices that the leghorn chicken has two "thumbs" pointing back, and two toes pointing forward, rather than the usual 3-and-1 we expect for kosher birds. And yet, white leghorns make beautifully white eggs, and so it is the breed most American chicken eggs come from. Actually, both it and the braekel chicken do indeed grab the perch in a 2-and-2 grip, once comfortably on it, they go to the 3-and-1 of the rest of the species. And like the leghorn chicken, the braekel chicken is a source of eggs in the US. However, not under the name "braekel". But America's campine chicken, which has the same kind of foot, was breed from the Kempishe Breakel. The question was resolved quite a while ago, which is why we in the US don't have to chase down which breed of chicken an egg came from. So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was raised, we were about to assur, and then it was found that in much of the world zebu was already being eaten as cow. And in fact, MOST tefillin made from gasos are zebu leather! The breakel, which is a normal enough part of the general chicken gene pool to get the usual taxonomical name -- Gallus gallus domesticus. But there are two subspecies of cow: those without a hump between their shoulder are Bos taurus taurus. Those that have such a hump, eg zebu, are Bos taurus indicus. But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can interbreed and produce fertile young, in which case how did any of these questions get started? The mesorah for chickens must therefore include oddballs of the min like leghorn, braekel and campine breeds, and that for cows must include the full min, both subspecies. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 13:42:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <692953b1-38ed-f530-7beb-1656bdc7942d@sero.name> On 14/08/17 14:28, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was > raised, we were about to assur, Very few were about to asser, because the view that a mesorah is needed for mammals is very much a daas yochid. > But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can > interbreed and produce fertile young This is true for mammals, not necessarily for birds. I'd put a different argument: Let's suppose that it *is* a new min, for which no mesorah can exist because it didn't exist until relatively recently. For that very reason we can be 100% certain that it isn't one of the 24 listed species, and therefore doesn't need a mesorah. And if it's *not* a new min then it's a chicken, and once again kosher (except according to Anan ben David y"sh). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 06:36:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:36:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn't this an issue, since they are using less than a revi'is (approximately 3.3 oz. - minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber's question) A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi'is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi'is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi'is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m'lo lugmav (half a revi'is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 14:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170815214945.GA13601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including :> the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha :> follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a :> shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow :> their minhag. Regardless of the shei'ur, so this is perhaps tangential.... The AhS talks about the difficulty in obtaining real wine, the kashrus of "wine" from soaked raisins, and thus the schnapps option. I wonder if so many rabbeim would have insisted on making qiddush on schnapps at all if wine were an affordable option where they lived. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 15:24:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: . R' Ben Waxman asked: > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot > right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the > members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset > on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the > right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine > no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose > money? My first thought is that this is a great example of a question that should be addressed to the rav of the beit knesset. There are so many factors that need to be weighed against each other, such as how badly the shul needs the money, and how many hurt feelings will be created by giving the wrong answer. As regards the comment "a sale is a sale" -- I'm not so sure. Sounds like a "davar shelo ba laolam" to me. Especially since we are considering the real possibility that a kohen guest might show up, rendering the auction questionable. Just my two grush. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 02:54:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Use of Stone Keilim During Bayis Sheini Message-ID: <20170816095450.GA3826@aishdas.org> See http://www.timesofisrael.com/2000-year-old-stone-workshop-discovered-near-where-jesus-turned-water-into-wine or http://j.mp/2v1gxan The Times of Israel By Amanda Borschel-Dan August 10, 2017, 11:51 am 2,000-year-old stone workshop discovered near where Jesus turned water into Only four Second Temple stoneware production centers have been unearthed in Israel Because it was immune to ritual impurity, the use of stoneware was rife among Jews during the Roman era ... A large 2,000-year-old Second Temple period chalkstone quarry and workshop was discovered at Reina in lower Galilee by a team of archaeologists headed by Dr. Yonatan Adler... A manmade chalkstone quarry cave was recently discovered between between Nazareth and the village of Kana. What is unique in this excavation is the additional find of a stoneware workshop -- one of only four in Israel. Although pottery was also in use during this period, archaeological digs around the region point to an uptick in stoneware during the Second Temple period -- likely for ritual purity reasons, as attested in the Talmud. "In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee also used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone," said Adler. ... "According to ancient Jewish ritual law, vessels made of pottery are easily made impure and must be broken. Stone, on the other hand, was thought to be a material which can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce some of their everyday tableware from stone," he said. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 04:45:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:45:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh Message-ID: . At first, I was going to pose these nitpicky questions on our Mesorah list. But then I found some answers, and I decided to share my journey with the whole chevra. If it doesn't put you to sleep from boredom, please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Shmos 1:10 - Paro starts panicking over the Jewish Problem. First, they're multiplying, and then, "ki sikrena milchama..." 1. What is the root of Sikrena? Kuf resh aleph, or kuf resh heh? 2a. If it is kuf resh heh - "if war happens" - then what is the aleph for? Is this a kri/ksiv situation? Does anyone explicitly refer to it as a kri/ksiv? 2b. If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? Why does every single translation and peirush render it as "if war occurs", or similar? Or do you know of any exceptions that I couldn't find? 3. What form is this word? My guess is that it is Kal, future, 3rd person feminine plural: "They(f) will...". That fits well with "proclaim", if "they(f)" refers to the attacking nations. But if the root is kuf resh heh, I don't know why the plural would be used. Is "milchama" some sort of plural or collective noun? Other relevant information: RSR Hirsch says that "sikrena" is a plural form, and therefore "milchama" is probably not the subject but the object. for the word's meaning, he refers us to Yeshaya 41:22, where this same word occurs. But as I see it, these words are not spelled the same: Where Shemos spells it with an aleph, Yeshaya has a yud. (I suppose Rav Hirsch considers this difference insignificant, but I'm not knowledgable enough to understand why.) I did find one lone voice who says that the root of "sikrena" is "read/call" and not "happen/occur". Namely, Mandelkern's Concordance. Yeshaya 41:22 appears on 1047d, in the root kuf-resh-heh. But he places our pasuk, Shemos 1:10, on 1043c, in the root kuf-resh-aleph. Another data point from Mandelkern: His opinion is that "sikrena" in Shemos 1:10 is a third-person plural verb. This is different from the second-person plural verb, which is spelled exactly the same, and appears in Rus 1:20 and 1:21, and in the Concordance on 1042a. I suspect that Mandelkern would endorse "*they* will proclaim war" as a correct translation. Finally, I tried a non-Jewish website devoted to translation issues. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7122.htm is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, and other similar sources. I probably could have gotten the same information from Mandelkern, but seeing their English translation on-screen made these examples jump out at me: Bereshis 42:4 - [Yaakov] said, "Lest disaster *happen* [to Binyamin]." Bereshis 49:1 - Yaakov said, "... I will tell you what will *happen* to you at the end of days." Vayikra 10:19 - Aharon told Moshe, "... such has *happened* to me..." Devarim 22:6 - When you *happen* upon a bird's nest... In all of the above, the Torah's word is spelled with a kuf-resh-ALEPH root. I find myself forced to concede that there is strong evidence (dare I call it "proof"?) that in addition to the usual meanings "read" and "call", kuf-resh-aleph can also mean "happen". Having said that, I was tempted to take this even farther. That page on BibleHub brings a lot examples where they translate kuf-resh-aleph as "meet". At first glance, I did not take it seriously; I felt that our common translation as "call" was more appropriate. For example, Shemos 5:3. where Moshe and Aharon tell Paro, "The God of the Hebrews nikra to us, so let us go for three days..." In my mind, this meant "Hashem called to us", and I rejected BibleHub's translation of "... has met with us." But then I read ("happened upon"? pun intended!) ArtScroll's translation, which is "...happened upon us." I was surprised by this, but I was even more surprised when I saw RSR Hirsch on this pasuk, where he tells us to look at Shemos 3:18, where he shows that these two roots (kuf resh aleph and kuf resh heh) are indeed similar. And so I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to translate Shemos 1:10 as "when a war happens". Does all this teach us anything about the small aleph in Vayikra 1:1? I leave that as an exercize for the reader. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 10:41:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish > or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? I don't think "proclaiming war" is something that can even happen in Hebrew. One can call *for* war, but the lamed is necessary. I can't think of any direct examples right now, but consider the parallel "vekarasa eleha leshalom". On the other hand we do have "ukrasem deror". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:25:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected cohen guest is the only option. If it is the aliyah itself which is sold then the cohen should be able to claim the shul had no right to sell it, and the choshen mishpat shailah is whether the shul or the buyer takes the loss. Obviously just my opinion not meant to second guess the mara d'atra. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? > > If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? > > If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:34:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:18 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I wonder if everyone agrees with the Machstzis Hashekel, i.e., would everyone agree that if you hold like the Taz the you can make kiddush on it? I was startled by the conclusion until I realized that "their minhag" refers to their own minhag, the the minhag of the Rebbes mentioned in the previous sentence. Still odd though, surely this is a psak halacha not a minhag. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn?t this an issue, since they are using less than a revi?is (approximately 3.3 oz. ? minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber?s question) > A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi?is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi?is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. > > Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi?is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m?lo lugmav (half a revi?is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. > > Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 15:22:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502922161954.91323@stevens.edu> Please see the article sent to me by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky that I have posted at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 04:55:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate Message-ID: A work around for agunot wanting to have kids: Rav Yitzhaq Yosef* ruled that an IVF child isn't a mamzer in a case of a married woman having her egg fertilized with the sperm of a man who who isn't her husband. Now an MK wants to use this psak to enable agunot to conceive via IVF and her kids won't have mamzerut problems (and have the treatment paid for by the state). * Yes other rabbis have given this ruling but when the Chief Rabbi gives a psak it gives a stronger basis for a knesset member to propose a law. See the article for more details (Hebrew): http://bit.ly/2uOmI6x I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A single woman is allowed to get IVF. Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 09:27:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170818162719.GF5755@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:25:19PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen : in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is : the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected : cohen guest is the only option... While I agree with that conclusion, the answer to your opening question was in RBW's post: :> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right :> after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are :> kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning... They sold the aliyah on the presumption that, as usual. And in fact, this "chazaqah" is so solid, RBS asked this eventually as a hypothetical; the wording he thought of was "were ... to come" not "when ... does come". Perhaps there was originally an al-tenai that simply people no longer remember. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:46:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818174604.GH5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:52:59PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha : minyanim questioned my saying "y'yasheir kochacha" to one of the olim ... : A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) : dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "Shalom aleichem", like M'gilas Rus' "H' : imachem // y'varechcha H'", is also a blessing, but the "problem" comes : up when it's utilized as a greeting. My rule: If said as a social pleasantry, or as a mindless playback of a recording your parents / society taught you, it's a greeting. But if you care more about whether the RBSO heard you than the person you're saying it about, it's a berakhah. And usually it's somewhere between those poles. With a skew toward the greeing end. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:02:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:02:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A : single woman is allowed to get IVF. I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei mi shelo nivra". But... This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless worse than never existing at all? (I adapted that line from arguments about aborting a fetus that tests positive for Downs. How many people with Downs hate their life so much that they regret existing?) : Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Marriage as described in Bereishis 1, perhaps. "Peru urevu umil'u es ha'aetz". But the intimacy of Bereishis 2 is not adressed "... al kein ya'azov ish es aviv ve'es imo, vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu lebasar echad". My version of "the talk" with my boys started with these two pesuqim. Explaining that relations are to serve these two functions. And also, while birth control can address one of these two, extramarital relations outside of "vedavaq be'isho" translate into exercises in weakening that bond, that gift HQBH gave us. (Adding now, as this bit would go over their heads: to approximate Adam Qadmon as humanity is described before Adam and Chavah are made from one into two.) And then, after establishing theological context, the talk continued on the usual biological and psychological planes. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 11:27:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses in Judaism Message-ID: R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/ He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American Eclipse of 2017: Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 14:10:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: . On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients. I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. > ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient > with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the > well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov > yisroel", just like many people today. And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then what did they do wrong? The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good description of it, I'd appreciate it.) The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food that even went by another name. And the very first time that they asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained. In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product. Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I wrote here 15 years ago: (http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03) > Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free > breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored > liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I > understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that > assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that > one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff, > and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap > orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice, > isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 11:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:29:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> References: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <529972d5-f946-74d5-e97e-26fbf8cbced3@starways.net> On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural > : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any > : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a > : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A > : single woman is allowed to get IVF. > > I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei > mi shelo nivra". But... I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view. > This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless > worse than never existing at all? Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 17:30:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:30:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, Cheilev and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. Is this correct? Can anyone offer some illumination? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 21:43:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4577e69b-191e-24b3-90cc-757555b83cd6@sero.name> On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... > Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I > don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at their lodgings. Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream? A grocery. >> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient >> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the >> well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov >> yisroel", just like many people today. > And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then > what did they do wrong? This is precisely the AhS's point. He strongly rejects the view of those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens when one does so. > > The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are > "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". > (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good > description of it, I'd appreciate it.) It's schmant in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet cream for coffee. Cf smetana, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour cream is zoyer shmetene. > The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to > what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food technology made everything complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel. (This is why the term "cholov stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used. RMF rejects the idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils its requirements.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 07:17:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: ' R' Zev Sero wrote: > No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type > of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in > Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least > one could before modern food technology made everything > complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to > *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, > etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. Summary: I concede. Longer version: I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as a resident of the 5700s. I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned about such things. I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the, there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly, there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them. There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in 1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the drivers for this change. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 12:04:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:04:07 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: <201708201904.v7KJ47OS022554@hsdm.com> >And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") . From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 22:11:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 01:11:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. > So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, > Cheilev > and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly > think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev. I don't know whether deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something that is identical to chelev so there is no question. (The difference may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone will think it's chelev? Obviously we don't worry about that because an observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to that conclusion?) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 08:37:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk Message-ID: . Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, but we don't hold like him. In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking, eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di" come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds. Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a - <<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds, who don't have mother's milk. >>> Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says it's d'rabanan. We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav", WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di" would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we learn from the word "imo"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 06:32:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse Message-ID: <1503322352892.87303@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 15:09:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis Message-ID: . Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads: > Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so > which bracha should be said? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for > which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the > acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and > great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. > It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. > Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe- > inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? > > Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and > Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh > Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which > are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states > that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's > sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many > commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. > As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses > are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. > > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of anyone else who comments on this question? Thanks! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 16:06:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses : > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah : > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). : : Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of : anyone else who comments on this question? The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses. The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human sin. Wholesale, not retail. The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer to the question in his words. The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who continue ignoring such signs. In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence". At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who aren't religiously moved by it. Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally used language of Wisdom and Intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 17:07:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> References: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b@sero.name> > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer > to the question in his words. That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's servant, the moon. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 04:11:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? Message-ID: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Something doesn?t add up. Every 28 years around April 8th, we recite the birkat hachama (last time, April 8th 2009, next time, April 8th 20037). Every month we recite the blessing over the moon. And as I learned, the ?oseh ma?aseh b?reshis? is over lightening but not over thunder and volcanoes. For thunder and volcanoes I thought we say ?shekocho g?vuroso malei olam.? Regarding an eclipse as an incredible and awe inspiring event, so is being in the presence of a child being born or in the presence of a person having being declared dead, resuscitated back to life. Is there a b?rocho for that? > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 07:16:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170822141651.LBEF22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> I heard a very interesting shiur at yutorah. Everything below was mentioned, plus one other thing: a great explanation of a gemara (or another Chazal) that says something like: "X" comes into the world (X might have been eclipses, or, if not, something related in some way) with four reasons: - not appropriately euglogizing an av beis din - (I can't remember) - homosexuality - the death of two brothers at once (or in battle) (He started the connection my explaining the ma'aseh of the moon's complaint against H' at creation . . . ) Here's the problem with my post: - I got to it via the "featured shiruim" on my YUTorah phone app -- and it's not there now. I went to the desktop site, and I can't seem to find it - I don't remember who it was (except that the rav who gave it over had a middle or eastern European accent) (My excuse: I went to western South Carolina to see the eclipse. The 8 hour drive home turned into almost 13 hours because of traffic, and I drove alone. I heard a lot of shiurim and my mind is pretty fuzzy . . . ) FWIW, -- Sholom At 05:40 AM 8/22/2017, via Avodah wrote: >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 >From: Zev Sero via Avodah >To: Avodah >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis >Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b at sero.name> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't > see an answer > > to the question in his words. > >That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points >out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that >eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or >moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means >that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens >is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or >mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, >even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise >and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when >Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. > >This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural >phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but >Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind >Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. > >This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry >at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them >and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't >they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it >removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun >is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's >servant, the moon. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 17:47:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:47:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness Message-ID: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> There was a discussion on Areivim about a particular person who was accused of committing a particularly evil crime. Someone posted, among other comments, ?I will add that the "rabbi" who committed these horrific acts is objectively G-dless. Apikores is too mild a term for him.? My response to this fits more for Avodah than Areivim: I know this man and most of the other players in this story. And while I haven?t interviewed him recently to test R?n TK?s assertion, it is my opinion that as reprehensible as these events are, it doesn?t mean that the person who committed them is Godless. Is any sinner Godless? More likely, a sinner like this carries around a huge measure of denial and/or conflict. But that doesn?t make him or her Godless. The Gemara says, in fact, that some sinners ? during the moment they?re sinning(!) are close to Hashem (Berachos 63a). I?ll elaborate: In truth, the argument can be made that any time a person sins he or she is Godless. Tomer Devorah in the first perek makes the contrapositive point ? that Shuras HaDin would dictate that Hashem remove himself from a person at the time of his sin, resulting in the sinner?s instant death. His response to that is that Hashem?s mercy is what keeps the person alive ? Hashem does not remove himself from the person, and keeps sustaining him or her even while he or she is sinning with the very power invested by Hashem in them that enables them to sin. But probably most times well-meaning people sin, their sin comes from one of the following three: ignorance, negligence, or lust. Ignorance: Not knowing or remembering something is forbidden. Negligence: Not caring enough to take care not to inadvertently sin. Lust: Being blinded to the evil that one is doing because of the strong desire to benefit from it. In all those cases, the person who is sinning is not thinking about Hashem. He?s ? in your terms ? ?objectively Godless.? But can he really be called that? Let?s talk about two extremes: The person who walks in front of another person who is saying Shemoneh Esrei (relatively minor), vs. the person who is not shomer negiah (relatively major). In both those cases it?s not that the person is not thinking about Hashem (which he admittedly is not), but that the person is not thinking about sin. Or, more succinctly, the person is just not thinking. Not Godless, but thought-less. And that can sum up all of the three categories ? ignorance, negligence, and lust cause people to sin by not thinking. So what happens when a person is a thinker? There are two possibilities. The person can be like Nimrod, "???? ????? ??????? ????? ??" ? he knows Hashem and doesn?t listen to him, although he recognized Hashem?s existence. That?s a plain old Rasha. But he?s not Godless ? ???? ?????. The second possibility is that that person does think about Hashem. He does think about his actions. He does know how bad it is what he?s doing. In other areas, not his weakness, he does keep to Hashem?s will. He is ???? ????? but he?s not ?????? ????? ??. Such a person, I think, is incredibly conflicted. He knows about Hashem and he?s rebelling against him on the one hand, while trying to obey him on the other. That person might be evil, might be scum of the earth, but he?s not Godless. On the contrary. And although we have to condemn such a person and his horrible actions, and we don?t envy his punishment in the World to Come, we might also be a little jealous of his relationship with Hashem. This may well be the reason the Gemara tells us that a person who says Lashon Hara about a talmid chacham falls in Gehennom, since the talmid chacham definitely did Teshuvah (Berachos 19a). How do we know he definitely did teshuvah? Because a talmid chacham, by definition, is a thinker. He didn?t indulge in non-thinking ? that?s not in his nature. And even if he had a moment of weakness and did something wrong, he certainly rebounded and regretted it the next day. (Contrast the talmid chacham with the non-thinker of before ? he just continues blissfully on with his life not realizing or caring that he sinned. That?s why we are not required to presume that he did Teshuvah.) A Godless person, properly defined, is one who denies Hashem?s existence completely. We have no basis, in this case or in many others, to assert that those are the circumstances we?re dealing with. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 23:43:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 06:43:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? On the topic Kvct Joel Rich Sent from my iPhone THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 21:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:06 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: It seems we agree that there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you are, eating what looks for all intents and purposes, to be Cheilev Yet Chazal were not Gozer to prohibit this due to Maris Ayin. Is the physical difference between Cheilev and Shuman more than the difference between fish blood and animal blood? Would there be no confusion between red coloured liquids, like wine and animal blood? There is no MA on Ben PeKuAh that is salvaged as a non-fully-gestated, no matter how long it lives and no matter how much it looks smells tastes and feels like an ordinary beast. Why is that so? Proposing that - IT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO CHEILEV SO THERE IS NO QUESTION - seems a little fantastic And indeed we should ask - why don't we worry that onlookers will think that beef Shuman is Cheilev? Is it OBVIOUS that there is no reason to suspect it is Cheilev, so why jump to that conclusion? I do not think so. I suspect that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies is as a product similar to the prohibited product. Perhaps like the position that Min BeMino is determined by name not by taste, Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 04:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Since when? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 07:09:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> References: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170823140919.GB32207@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:28AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: :> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat : Since when? Tangent: One of my pet peeves about Brisker derekh is how "chalos sheim" often is just begging the question. X needs a P, or else it doesn't really have the chalos sheim X. It's an empty statement, just saying that P is needed because the category needs P. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:13:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:13:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tax Evasion and Esrog purchasing In-Reply-To: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> References: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170825191326.GA15871@aishdas.org> Back in Sep 2014 Every year I mention the problem of buying an esrog from someone who > offers a better price if you pay in cash. Last year I was able to shift > from "li nir'eh it's a problem". RHSchachter reports that according to > RJBSoloveitchik, helping the seller evade taxes in this way is lifnei iver > (deOraisa, not "just" the derabbanan of mesayeia) and THE ESROG IS PASUL. They just put R' Asher Weiss's teshuvah on this subject up at : Tvunah in English Question: I recently went to a store and was told if a pay in cash then i would not need to pay taxes. If it is obvious that by me paying in taxes the store owner would not pay the proper tax on this sale to the government, am I allowed to do such a purchase or there is a problem of [lifnei iveir lo sisein mikhshol]. Answer: This would not seem to be the actual prohibition of Lifnei Iver as cash payment is inherently permissible and he can and may still pay taxes. There are a number of reasons a person would prefer cash payments, aside from tax evasion. At the same time, with regards to taxes we should generally assume Dina Demalchusa Dina and not encourage or promote tax evasion. It would seem RAW agrees on the halakhah, but disagrees that you should be chosheish that the preference for cash is due to tax evasion. Although in the first sentence the sho'el says the salesman told him so outright!? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:29:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:29:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Eilu va'Eilu Message-ID: <20170825192948.GA17720@aishdas.org> Because how can I /not/ share something on eilu va'eilu? -micha ----- Forwarded message from torahweb at torahweb.org ----- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:31:45 -0400 From: torahweb at torahweb.org Subject: updates to Rav Schachter's dvar Torah To: weeklydt at torahweb.org TorahWeb EILU V'EILU Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim -- both opinions are the words of the Living G-d." although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she'ha'Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She'b'al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah. The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether -- according to their perspective -- the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim." This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions imply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v'eilu. Even when we do apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" it does not mean that halacha l'ma'aseh one has the right to follow either opinion. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v'eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, "Beis Shamai b'makom Beis Hille eina Mishna", i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don't even consider the views of Beis Shamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d'hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b'chutz la'aretzm, even when dealing with a d'oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l'hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l'ma'aseh. (See my sefer, B'Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.) Likewise the poskim assume that when you have a shitah y'chida'ah, a lone opinion among poskim not shared by others, this view also does not constitute a slight safeik. The Beis Shmuel (Shulchan Aruch, Even HoEzer siman 90, s'if kattan 6) thinks that even if the Rambam agrees with the Ri Migash on an position not agreed upon by other poskim, this view should be totally ignored, since the Rambam was so taken by the genius of the Ri Migash (his father's rebbe), and would naturally be inclined to accept his opinion without even thinking twice (even though in several instances the Rambam does reject his opinion), this psak would be considered a shitah y'chida'ah and should be totally ignored. It was recently reported that a certain "beis din" permitted a married woman to remarry without a get, because it was ascertained that her husband was not Sabbath observant at the time he married her, and the halacha considers one who is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia to be like a non-Jew. And, they reasoned, we all know that if a non-Jew marries a Jewish woman the marriage does not take effect. This ruling is absolutely scandalous. First of all, the consensus of recent poskim has been that the concept of mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia doesn't apply today since so many Jews are not shomer Shabbos and the term "b'farhesia" has the connotation that this individual is breaking the discipline in the community (Chazon Ish and Binyan Tzion.) The members of this "beis din" would most certainly have been the first to say that such a Jew would not cause wine he touched to become prohibited because he is not considered to be like a non-Jew. More importantly, the view that a Jew who is treated as a non-Jew because he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia can't effectively marry a Jewish woman is totally ignored, because it is against an explicit gemara (Yevamos 47b) that states that even if a Jew converts to another religion and marries a Jewish woman the marriage does in fact take effect. We can't apply the concept of eilu v'eilu to this view; it is simply incorrect. Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v'eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v'eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does notmean that it has ramifications halacha l'ma'aseh. There are rules and regulations regarding psak halacha; this discipline is not hefker (is not a free for all.) The parsha tells us that the halachic positions of the Beis Din Hagadol are binding on all Jews. The Sanhedrin was a group of Torah scholars who were clearly head and shoulders above all of their contemporaries. They were the gedolei hador (the Torah giants of their generation), and the gedolei hador have the status of rabo muvhak for their entire generation, even for those who never even met them (see Tosafos on Berachos 31b and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 244:10.) The halachic positions of one's rebbe muvhak are binding on him, and the halachic views of the gedolei hador (who are clearly head and shoulders above the other Torah scholars of their generation) may not be ignored. None of the members of the aforementioned "beis din" are recognized by anyone as belonging to the category of gedolei hador, and even if it had been a case where we would apply eilu v'eilu, since the gedolei hador have unanimously rejected it for generations, no one today who is not in the category of gedolei hador has the right to go against this rejection! Rabbinic leaders throughout the generations are always concerned with the plight of agunos, but coming up with non-halachic solutions is not the Orthodox way. The Talmud Yerushalmi seems to hold that the concept of pikuach nefesh doesn't only apply when one's life is in danger, but also if one's life will be made extremely miserable this too falls under the category of pikuach nefesh, which allows one to violate Torah laws. The Yerushalmi (quoted by Rav Yosef Engle in Teshuvas Aguna) says that we would have allowed every agunah to violate the prohibition of adultery if not for the fact that we are dealing with gilui arayos (forbidden marriages) where the halacha does not permit one to violate the mitzvah even in a case of literal pikuach nefesh -- even to save one's life. The aforementioned "beis din" is doing a disservice to the Orthodox Jewish community at large, and specifically to these poor agunos, by misleading them with absolutely scandalously fallacious piskei halacha. Let the public beware! One must be of the caliber of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski in his generation or Rav Moshe Feinstein in the past generation in order to determine in a given case if the halacha permits a woman to get remarried without a get. POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the aforementioned "beis din", also see important letter from Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz regarding the "International Beit Din" . Copyright (c) 2017 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 09:42:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Poem For Elul Message-ID: <20170827164248.GA14698@aishdas.org> Saw on Facebook and wanted to share. I am not sure if R Bin Goldman intended the title to be "a poem for elul" (sic) and the first line read (in Hebrew, my transliteration) "Lekha Amar Libi" or if he wrote a poem titled "Lekha Amar Libi, which he introduced as a poem for Elul. I am presenting it as if the latter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Lekha Amar Libi [R'] Bin Goldman My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:18:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach Message-ID: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)? If not, where is its force grounded? Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own law as long as it doesn?t contradict the seven? Who would be eligible to be on a Bnai Noach court and how much interpretive independence would they have? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:19:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Moshe and aharon Message-ID: <846178C1-4E50-4DC0-9C2B-7D9B22F0E745@sibson.com> Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b ) two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to debate] Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse Kt Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 18:53:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:10 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... Message-ID: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin presented in an earlier message. The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product. Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting - please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when? Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera, see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its - Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues] R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. Would you please explain how and/or why? = = = = = = Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are 3 issues that require clarification: 1. Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protests? Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: 1. Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. 2. Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:34:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8326ab8f-6f6d-4868-0fd3-9a28f508abd0@sero.name> On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. > Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the important) distinction. I don't know how similar they look on the surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with different names even in English. > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Once again, I object. Who says so? > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be > performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to > the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 07:20:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828142031.GA10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin : presented in an earlier message. : The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis. As in: : R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the : application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. : Would you please explain how and/or why? This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an observer. See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur, not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half of the label on the "almond milk". But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat? Tangent: : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk... WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats and the milk were cooked together. As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar. After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to wait to eat. The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's. (My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?) Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs. But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked them together? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:06:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (MorrisIsaacson via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog Message-ID: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) Thank you, Moshe Isaacson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:20:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the : sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk : that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that : milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us : that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would : have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would : have been protected from those other ingredients... This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out something else... According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is that of kosher species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of the milking. Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched by a Yisrael. Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly, neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy more than chazal's taqanah. For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's ruling exempting powdered milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent > adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still > applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched > by a Yisrael. > > Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 10:52:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa : lechumra. Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines right above your comment. (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about without the gezeira. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:52:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828155218.GC10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote: : Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated : with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't resplond when you asked on another forum.) Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid. The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and Tzefaniah 2:14. But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol to it. The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll", because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French. Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would share that metaphor. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. > > : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash > : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa > : lechumra. > Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal > visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing > "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. > So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines > right above your comment. He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah. And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5fe6203e-5ca3-2df7-9dc4-ab23193ca9e8@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF > held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus > inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping kashrus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:18:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:18:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have : done. I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:50:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7a7271fd-d51c-6efc-2eb8-8d88dc02bf52@sero.name> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose > : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need > : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have > : done. > > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further supervision is needed. I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care about reshus. What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his employees or guests. The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours from the bottle into his cup. And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. So what makes it CY? This can be further split into two scenarios: (1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision. It was CY lim'hadrin from the moment of milking until this nochri bought it. But now it isn't. (2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at one point it was already in reshus yisroel. In other words, there was more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from the bottle. Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus nochri? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 15:07:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? In-Reply-To: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> References: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170828220709.GH31841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the : bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') : is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, : an eclipse is not included in this list... The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of an eclipse is for others, not Jews. BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah? Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said? I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im (mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see Creation in it but can't. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 13:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828202847.GG31841@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature : calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow : and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as : Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. ... : But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar : and non-Tzon, this non-animal? : Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence : my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You went over my head. I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73. So what are you asking? ... : Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, : the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even : if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur : will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and CAN be chal on it. As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type fatty deposits? Where this question is coming from: My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of a chayah is permissible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 17:25:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:25:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances Message-ID: Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis. He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined by the names we use to identify things. But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as far as I can tell, has not been addressed. Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the facts of the Halacha. I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by. We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino, is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste? Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop - stop trying to force the round peg. I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined. = = = = = Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked with milk from the Pesikta he quotes. Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, it must still be Halachically coherent. Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats. - - - - - Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained why there is no MA to cook these with dairy. He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different names even in English. Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are. Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi. Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim, take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is explaining. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:10:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:10:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? Message-ID: The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The answer is Yes and also No There is an Issur to eat Neveila but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat - RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2 Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah. Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by the Gemara, Chullin 58a. A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar, a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo. After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before being incubated] from unfertilised eggs. Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif]. Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it. What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision must be made, which is ZVZGo. BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa. Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher chickens when they hatch. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 16:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh Message-ID: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds." Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 19:54:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which conclusions may be drawn. > Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when > HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until > they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection > and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was permitted to them. But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 05:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it (and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead) However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers. They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish. Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container with CS. How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)? (they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 08:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ab46d6f-e25f-3389-5dea-28aabefa26c1@sero.name> On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they > are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were > growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the > eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] Then why not say the same of the hen's meat? It too was mostly grown before it became a tereifah! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 12:52:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh In-Reply-To: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> References: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170829195223.GA27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, : assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? : Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as : Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in : Hebrew. TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error tragic; I wonder if it's common. I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers: Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds... until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud. Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad. The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados". The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 13:32:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170829203231.GB27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold : that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the : status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan : according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their : keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the : absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all : kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his : descendants! Not to mention all benei Racheil. Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before we were true Benei Yisrael. Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a "nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah. Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other. Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as an issur chamur. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 30 12:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:48:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments Message-ID: A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933: As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . (Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues) We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address. It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure way of life that would bring us to God's light. The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps. Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split. A couple of notes: 1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause. 2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other personal sin), he had this in mind. 3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely within the Clal doing the sin. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 06:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 07:44:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it > sounds like "original sin." YL And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:35:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170831233516.GB22179@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me :> it sounds like "original sin." YL : : Did you think only Xians beleived : in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our : view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the : guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"... The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach. Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos, all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin. Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 12:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America Message-ID: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus see there for more background: On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land... On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein... REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US. Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6: Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them, they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness, not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished, as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia. Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain, without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with our very eyes ... This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel] was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150 years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather, that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times. (Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America being a "medinah shel chessed.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:43:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have several comments. The OU writes: > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > the home for Shabbos. Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs of the home." In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting the lights is part of that! The OU continues: > The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. > Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to > sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama), > women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to > me it sounds like "original sin." I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I think that's all the Tur is saying. It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive from the same event. Finally, the OU writes: > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > the wicks will easily catch fire. It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be *more* difficult to light later on. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 18:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:57:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh Message-ID: NEVEILAH Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the prohibition to eat Neveilah It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2 However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah. I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by Halacha so why is it Assur to eat it? MARIS AYIN The following are universally accepted 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha and even Minhag 2] AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta] 3] AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA? I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal. and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats, even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA. The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah - Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not. Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has no direct Halachic component to it Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a reflection of Halacha. Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden. Please provide some sources. As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is also predicated upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim. As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish? ISSUR BBCh I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor - only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook. The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out - the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:06:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:06:02 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a little bit will do] That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However, for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen. The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:00:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb'al peh Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression > that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may > disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no > one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within > the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from > Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions > made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that > seem problematic to our minds." > > Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, > assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not > so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies > as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent > in Hebrew. I could respond in any of several ways. Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial. I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash, until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that Nach is also included.) Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural sources, and with hardly any logical arguments. Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin: What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his stereotypes about mishnayos.) This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion, and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our practice is XYZ. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 22:23:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? Ben On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system > of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to > see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or > murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow > one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and > speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 06:49:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org>, <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. Kvct Joel rich > On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? > > Ben > >> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system >> of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to >> see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or >> murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow >> one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and >> speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkampgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:45:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based ideology. But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses. I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate, interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need. So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:58:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ > Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas > haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's > because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something. Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive, and they recognized this. The implications for today are self-evident. As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the Zionists actively fought against religious practice. -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:11:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote: : That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I : don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:19:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:19:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict so many murderers. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:27:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901152729.GI31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so : that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power : and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, : false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why : we continue to remember Amalek. R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8) RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can can pass as soon as we stop being a threat. Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as chinam. So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah. This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on what they did, and not let it Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't, why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred we feel once we realize they hate us back. The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how to address sin'as chinam. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:27:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only > superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any > other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't > mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it > became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly > damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:08:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:08:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias" and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell "Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote: : As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign : names? As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations. The use of : aleph and ayin always makes things interesting. The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE 126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them. It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.) My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud. There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef; patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud. On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued: :> The very point I was trying to make is that yes, : I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an : English word into Hebrew. : If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1 : spelling. Especially for more complicated names. As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)... There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others. I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself. The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide English sounds among the established transliterations. "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the "j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and an English "ch". The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or "Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's where I could see debate. Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only said by some who know her? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:59:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4318c19f-0790-10f1-6bab-106d72e8dd9b@sero.name> On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/ thing for the "j". The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi teshuvot discuss it. IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it was spelt gimel yud. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:34:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:34:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The role of gematria, and remez in general In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <488600f7-ef1c-3adb-b551-f3c00f739ff9@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170901163421.GC28962@aishdas.org> >From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria itself reached Avodah topicality. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim: > True. But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li > pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see > how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that. > R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other > opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not > one of them methods used to darshan Torah. And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:" : Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves : use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah... What is the role of Remez? We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh -- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.) Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat in the pasuq. And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod". But remez? What's it for? It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f004425-548e-142a-90de-48c5e91769b8@sero.name> On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. [Email #2] On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:24:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901172407.GB14196@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means : they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which would either mean: 1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency. Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't try to fix what you can? 2- They felt they were insufficient in skill. Or a third or fourth possibility. I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death. Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment. And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9, the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death. He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then. R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin" which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time getting permission to execute someone than they did. But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi wrong. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:52:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote: > > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > > the home for Shabbos. > >Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. >The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was >"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a >level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why >this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, >because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs >of the home." > >In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting >the lights is part of that! Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) >Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be >in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do >something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I >think that's all the Tur is saying. You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness, >Finally, the OU writes: > > > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > > the wicks will easily catch fire. > >It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully >understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain >piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and >difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a >charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. >In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be >counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be >*more* difficult to light later on. Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:32:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:32:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412cee4b-73a8-f3ae-bd8f-d8051cb68646@sero.name> On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually > oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:03:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, from Jewish breakaway groups). Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). Another (lesser known one): the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha. (IIRC, the S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.) My question is this: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and something comparable in secular life. Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from some other group/idealogy? (E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of it's Nazi association. But I'm looking for a better and more relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't a common design anyway)). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:07:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we : are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some : sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and : something comparable in secular life. Something so direct, it's not even an analogy. Jewish: Yichud. Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the opposite gender. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:17:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> >The following are universally accepted >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all >Halacha and even Minhag Is this the case? According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm , the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos). He also mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613. (As they each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) ) So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? (In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or so. So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did the general opinion change? Or did it?) -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 02:39:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:39:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath Message-ID: Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel during their Shabbath? Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, text (SMS) or WhatsApp? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 12:09:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality.? So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 03:38:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 06:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . I wrote: > In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then > lighting the lights is part of that! and R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of > homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? > ... > Given that roles today are much different than they were in > the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles > should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I > am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive. I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For example, if non-family are present, some might consider this non-tzniyus. But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other. > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which > are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights > with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is > no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem > with Shabbos neiros? As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that does not apply to Chanukah. My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 04:08:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: . R' Sholom Simon asked: > Can anybody think of a secular (ideally, American) law or > common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish > ourselves from some other group/idealogy? R' Micha Berger's response of yichud is a great example of where secular society has grasped the importance of gezeros which help protect us from ourselves. Similarly, secular society understands the concept of Mar'is Ayin and Chashad, and they express this in the term "Appearance of impropriety". (There's even a short Wikipedia page with that title.) But I don't think either of these is what RSS was asking for. He wants examples where the purpose is specifically: > in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, > from Jewish breakaway groups). > > Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos > (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). The answer that first came to my mind is that the original American colonists adopted various practices to distinguish themselves from their European origins. I'm sure there were others, but the main one that comes to my mind is the spelling differences between British and American English. For example, the Wikipedia article "Comparison of American and British English" says: "One particular contribution towards formalizing these differences came from Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionary (published 1828) with the intention of showing that people in the United States spoke a different dialect from Britain, much like a regional accent." Akiva Miller PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, where we are uneqivocally supposed to do it one way, but the other way is grudgingly acceptable after the fact. (Speeding limits are *not* a good example of this. The policeman will probably not stop you for going slightly over the limit, but he certainly could. That would be a Chetzi Shiur at most - a clear violation, even if not a punishable one.) If anyone has good examples, please start a new thread. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 06:07 PM 9/1/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >Jewish: Yichud. >Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy >about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the >opposite gender. Thanks -- but I'm looking more for something that is intended to separate us (us "regular Americans" -- whatever that is) from a people or nation or ideology that we find distasteful. An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). I'm looking for a law or practice that *separates/distinguishes" (havdil) - your example is more like a "fence." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest example I can think of is not secular. Mennonite (including Amish) men shave their moustaches to express their rejection of all things military, because when their customs were formed soldiers wore moustaches. > PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that > is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, There's the principle "de mimimis non curat lex", but that's more like chatzi shiur, which civil law considers mutar lechatchila. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:15:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <657b8edc-97f8-5fa2-45c9-7efe94200b60@sero.name> On 02/09/17 05:39, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel > during their Shabbath? > > Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, > text (SMS) or WhatsApp? If you know they won't break shabbos to read it, or at least you don't know they will break shabbos to read it, then I don't see a problem. "Ee ata metzuveh al shevisas keilim". It's not shabbos for you; it is shabbos for the remote instrument that you are manipulating, but that is not a problem. The same would apply to operating a waldo that's in a place where it's shabbos; it's shevisas keilim, which BH says is not a thing. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:28:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: <12a7adb9-e48c-7af7-3fb2-7ee96c2a3799@sero.name> On 02/09/17 15:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue > here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a > reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and > Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but > it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand > that we live in this reality. But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:51:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:51:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (1:4) writes: "When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel ... They would come to the Beis Din at the entrance to the Azara. If they knew [the din] they would tell them, if not everyone went into the Beis Din and asked. ... If the matter was not clear to the Beis Din they would discuss the issue until all agreed or they they would take a vote and follow the majority and tell the petitioners this is the halacha" The Rambam is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 88 which states the following: "At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Beis Din Hagadol. The Beis Din Hagadol was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah). If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide. After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai)." There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the Tannaim, the Gemara in fact related that they left their place in the Lishkas ha'Gazis 40 years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. If so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol in existence? 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:23:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: , <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: From: Sholom Simon Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:17 PM > The following are universally accepted > 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha > and even Minhag > Is this the case? ... > So... what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone > accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? As in many things, the Rambam seems not to have been noticed. This is distressing, because the Rambam tries to present things according to halokho, not according to medrash. As he says in his introduction to the Tenth Pereq of Sanhedrin in Perush haMishnayot, medrash is almost never to be taken literally, but rather comes to teach us things (but says that most Jews don't understand that). For halakhic purposes, the Rambam explains in Hil. M'lakhim 9:1, that Adam haRishon observed 6 things that he was commanded. One was added after the Mabbul, so yielding 7 mitzvos that Noah and his descendents were commanded to observe. Avraham Avinu was also commanded concerning Milah, and he took upon himself the obligation to daven Shacharit. Yitzchak added another two, and Ya'aqov another two. When rabbis say that Avraham observed all 613 Mitvot, it is obviously not meant literally: many, many of the 613 only came into force after King Shlomo built the BhM. Before that, there were a whole set of other mitzvot (such as that the Kohanim and only the Kohanim wereto take apart and assemble the Mishkan, and that the L'viyim and only the L'viyim were to carry the parts of the Mishkan). These were commandments from HQBH, but not part of the set of 613. When the BhM was built, those mitzvot disappeared and new mitzvot, which are part of the 613 count, came into effect. So before that no one "observed" the 613. And some of the 613 are only applicable to Kohanim, and some only to L'viyim, and some only to Yisra'elim, so there was no person ever who observed or could observe all 613 mitzvot. So when we say nowadays that Jews are commanded to observe 613 mitzvot it does not mean that any person is commanded to observe all 613; it means that there exist 613 mitzvot. Every Jew is commanded to learn all 613, however. So it is possible that the Avot learned all 613. But most of them were not technically mitzvot then, because they were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and before that no one was commanded to do them. So what does the Torah mean when it says that Avraham observed "mishmarti, mitzvotai,chuqqotai v'torotai" (sic, not "toratei) in Chapter 26? The same thing that it means in 18:19 "for I know him, that he will command his children and his house after him to obeserve the way of the Lord." There is no question that Avraham Avinu was ALSO commanded to observe what Chazal include in the term "Derekh Eretz" and the Rambam explicates in Hil. De'ot Pereq 6, which included such basic things as proper behavior and middot (and one of the main goals of the Aishdas organization, and nowadays is called "mussar"). Chazal say that all of those things have to come before Torah, i.e. before learning rest of the Torah. And, as Micha the founder of Aishdas can tell you better than anyone, there are so many, many things that one has to learn and focus on to observe these most basic of the commandments. So Avraham would have had his hands full teaching people those. Did he also learn all the mitzvot that would be given later? He was a novi, and so perhaps could, but one cannot say that he "observed" them in the literal sense, because how could one "observe" a law that had not yet been instituted and was not even applicable? Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 17:39:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when : American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. : (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their national ethnicity. I think this topic has become non-PC. Nationalism is even a dirty word in some circles; viewed as faschism, or fascism-lite. You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without running afoul of rules about discussing politics? But I hope that at least relating the two topics will provide something to think about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 10:58:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel > and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the > Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din > Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority and passed their 18 gezeros. The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the period of the zugos. Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 12:44:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:44:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > >> 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel >> and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the >> Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din >> Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. >> > > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority > and passed their 18 gezeros. That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. > The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. > Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the > period of the zugos. Yes that is exactly the question. Why didn't they resolve all of the Machlokes in the Mishnayos. > Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the > other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. Wouldn't that violate the issur of lo tasuguru mipnei ish? > > > -- > Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, > zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 18:14:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7333f45e-37cb-8ad0-ca8f-bffbb68048f8@gmail.com> Sun, 3 Sep 2017 Marty Bluke asked: > ...The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the > Tannaim... > so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence > there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students > had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol > in existence? > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and > Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? > Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for > most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. By '''in existence,'' the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The English-language Jewish history books that have been published over the past few decades follow this model. I have also done so in ''The Dynamics of Dispute,'' (Judaica Press) Chapter 10, ''The Control and Proliferation of Machlokess, Keeping the Torah One.'' Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 01:59:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:59:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:01:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> On 05/09/17 04:59, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both > David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never > attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females must be killed as well. Your question of how Agag's descendants, conceived the night before he was killed, managed to become so numerous so quickly applies here too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:17:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? Message-ID: According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. However, others disagree. Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/yblaj8cu If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:49:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:49:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it > into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? > Greek changed a lot over the centuries. I'm not sure if it even existed as a language at the time of Joshua, and the Greek alphabet was certainly much later. If Greek was the one of the languages the Torah was translated into then it would probably have been unrecognizable in the Hellenistic period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 09:17:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> On 05/09/17 11:17, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate > it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? 1. Ptolemy, not Alexander. 2. 72 sages, not 70. 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) exist today? 4. Even if the writing did still exist, would whatever passed for Greek in 1271 BCE have been intelligible in 271 BCE? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:36:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:36:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/5/2017 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. > However, others disagree. ... > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 > languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages > to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek > translation? Well, for one thing, it was Ptolemy, rather than Alexander. But for another, maybe it wasn't necessary. Perhaps if they'd simply asked for the authoritative Greek translation, they'd have gotten it, and any number of distortions of the Torah caused by the Septuagint wouldn't have happened. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:20:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> References: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170905182040.GB2253@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:17:10PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the : writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure : to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) : exist today? Rishonim on Yehoshua also argue how many such monuments there were. For example Rashi (at least as explained in Gur Aryeih) has three copies: one in the Yaedrin, one on the mizbeiach on Har Eivel (which is named in Devarim) and one at Gilgal. AND there is a machloqes tanna'im (Sotah 35b) about how they were written. But I think both shitos hold they were engraced. R' Shimon says that the stones were plastered, and then the words were engraved into the plaster. R' Yehudah held the stones were engraved, and then plastered on top of them. R' Yehudah's position sounds like it's describing more permanent writing, but how would you get to see it? You would not only need to peel off the plaster, the plaster could well get into the engraved letters. To address the original question: Ezra haSofer used majority to produce the mesoretic text, leaving us with a sefer that didn't match any of the copies found. Why didn't he check the Hebrew copy/ies from the monunemnt(s)? Wouldn't a text engraved by people who met MRAH be more authoritative than any of them? (All this assuming, as is the post I'm replying to, that they contained the whole Torah. That is the shitah we're trying to understand, no?) So it would seem to me that just as we have no idea how to find this monument / these monuments, even if the writing is still legible, they were already unavailable in Ezra's day. Unsurprising, given how much more pragmatic and used knowledge was lost. And even if they did know where to find it, either the writing wore off the plaster, or perhaps the plaster was too embedded after all those centuries to be picked off to read the stone. Regardless of the shift in Greek, the stones weren't even usable when the target was the original Hebrew. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170905184626.GC2253@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:17:58PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >The following are universally accepted : >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all : >Halacha and even Minhag : : Is this the case? In a footnote to one of his father-in-law's maamarim, RMMS (the LR), writes that this is meant that they did so "beruchnius, velo begashmius": Some mitzvos they "only" fulfilled the point of the mitzvah without physically doing the mitzvah. E.g. tefillin, with its mention of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. Others, they did perform the mitzvah physically, but still they only did so to accomplish the ruchnius -- it was only incidentally physical, and only sometimes in the same form. See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31608&st=&pgnum=137 For example (not given there), the Zohar links Yaaqov's spotted sticks and changing the coats of sheep to the mitzvah of tefillin. But the sticks didn't become qadosh, because uplifting and redeeming the gashmi wasn't part of the plan. There is more in Liqutei Sichos on Lekh Lekha www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/68627/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Lech-Lecha.htm Given RMMS's relationship to shitas Rashi, and our stereotype that chassidus tends to take maximalist positions, I thought this position would be somewhat interesting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 13:30:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:30:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> Message-ID: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females > must be killed as well. How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what the mitzvah and the dinim were? Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently no one informed him. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 20:43:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 05/09/17 16:30, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females >> must be killed as well. > > How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what > the mitzvah and the dinim were? They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 07:45:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:43:20PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe : taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of : "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in : front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never : knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so : angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. BB 21b. I think he concluded said rebbe (Yoav) did it as intentional ziyuf, not an error. R Mordechai Breuer concludes that the semichut (i.e. the "X of Y" form of the word for X) for "zakhar" could follow a variant conjugation and come out "zekher". And while it's hard to picture confusing "z'khar" and "zeikher", "zekher" and "zeikher" is much easier. The "zekher" vs "zeikher" debate over what the Gra had for Parashas Zakhor was over which means the Gra's intent was to tell us the word means "reminder / memorial" rather than "memory". The mesorah is "zeikher". But if zekher could mean both "males of" and "memory of", the mistake is VERY easy. (Not that RMB would worry about the possibility of the Gra disagreeing with the mesoretic niqud.) But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? It's strange. In our culture, it would be the "hot topic" of study for the weeks leading into the war... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 11:48:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > error. No. Why would he do that? The Rishonim discuss whether the rebbe himself didn't know the correct pronunciation, or whether he knew it and therefore taught it corrrectly, but didn't pay enough attention to how each boy was pronouncing it, so never noticed that young Yoav had misheard him and was reading "z'char". > But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 15:51:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an : >error. : No. Why would he do that? A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't get clarification /before/ the war? And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most of the animals? Actually, if you figure the remaining animals were for qorbanos, he was planning on all them being killed. A random reenactment of Yericho? Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 19:12:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> On 06/09/17 18:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > : >error. > > : No. Why would he do that? > > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. I don't understand why you keep bringing David up. What does he have to do with this story? The story is about Yoav, not David. And I repeat my question, why would Yoav's rebbe intentionally corrupt the pasuk? Why would Yoav even suspect him of it? > :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? > > : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. So how does that make Yoav a gadol? > And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? Why would it even occur to him that Yoav had such a misunderstanding? > And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most > of the animals? Do you mean Shaul? Perhaps Yoav didn't know the details of what had happened all those years ago. In fact how many people ever knew about Shmuel's rebuke of Shaul? It may have been secret by the king's order, and not spoken about, so Yoav may never even have heard of it. > Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when > it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Again, Yoav thought he had it right. He didn't even know that there was anything he needed to ask. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 00:02:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi@opengemara.org via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3FF2B345-8199-48FC-A3BD-6A89FC2540F9@opengemara.org> On September 6, 2017 3:51pm PDT, Micha Berger wrote: ... > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. .. >: Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? The Gemara (Bava Basra 21b) says that the issue was "???? ???? ????? ?' ???? [arur oseh melekhes H' remiyah -mb]" -- that the teacher should be more attentive (also, it fits into the Sugya there -- that a teacher who is medayek is better than one who's fast). Also, there's a machlokes in Sanhedrin if Yoav was a good person who made mistakes or if he was evil but found Dovid Hamelech to strong. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 09:45:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:45:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: R' Martin Bluke asked: > 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says > hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash > states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night > and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. > > However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought > Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if > Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David > and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to > wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out Amalek. First the data: * The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters. * The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh * As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's Pelishti stronghold. * Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a problem. So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul. Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans, but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert. So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them, because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites, Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself. Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command. Ad kaan. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 11:15:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Practices of the Tochacha" Message-ID: Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well written and very interesting. http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 12:54:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170907195348.KNNX30763.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: >: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when >: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. >: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). > >Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have >recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken >to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their >national ethnicity. . . . > >You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without >running afoul of rules about discussing politics? Perhaps. Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable with respect to Americans and the American Revolution! Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 14:24:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170907212448.GC15354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? : http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation: All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 15:38:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170907223856.GD15354@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" : d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its : mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? : : Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, : but we don't hold like him. Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4. It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20. ... : We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from : Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus : seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's : significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, : suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later (you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted the gezeira. Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely. : So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev, not so much. I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo" was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo" rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get that conclusion from "sevasheil". And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim lemiqra. But it crashed down. Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 23:55:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> Message-ID: Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks with him the rest of life. Ben On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there > was anything he needed to ask. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 11:55:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 13:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:06:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote: : I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw : it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather : than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," : just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. R Mordechai Breuer On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote: : How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him : what the mitzvah and the dinim were? : Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous : mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know : that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently : no one informed him. And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav was strongly deferential to David. Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the questions as to why. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 14:02:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything > about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a > unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav > was strongly deferential to David. I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. Suppose you're a caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which includes liver. You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, and I agree. You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 9 19:13:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur Message-ID: RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh [but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein Issur Chal Al Issur. So how is it that RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 03:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: > By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' > Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources > that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol > could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and > Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam says? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:18:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to function normally. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:43:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:43:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the > time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to > function normally. And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way. The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin was not functioning normally. [Email #2. -micha] One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 07:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91da4a07-6dcd-bc04-b9e0-38326532931d@sero.name> On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod to both sides. (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 10:02:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : While there may have : been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, : why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam : says? Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin, when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin. (Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.) So, what happened? My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed resolution by higher courts. IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 15:32:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45eac523-5fc8-1a2c-0c9a-256d54c2e054@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700), when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704, while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate, and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards. There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows Beis Hillel. Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become the standard one. All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 20:42:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> Message-ID: <6c5042b2-7703-92b5-e001-b2e5bc111010@zahav.net.il> In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these issues when instructing the soldiers? Ben On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 01:20:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the > one on smicha What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. [Email #2] On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different > conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed > resolution by higher courts. > > IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. > > To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of > valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 06:23:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha" > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. No, they weren't. BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they started in the very last years before it, when things were far from normal functioning. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170911151131.GF24527@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? : Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis : Sheini. But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis. I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a "veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule. The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer. Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq, for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al devarav, for even these greats weren't. So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the best answer to your question. And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to the late amoraim? Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why (leshitas haRambam) the question was still around? : On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. :> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of :> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? : The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white : approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim : "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything : in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying : that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini. (Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's just projecting.) There is a difference between 1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah saying it means the last two are in reversed order; and 2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this idea would be kosher. The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin. And yet, multiple norms would co-exist. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the destruction of Bayit Sheni. Lisa On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis > Sheini. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 07:13:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories Message-ID: <20170911141302.GB24527@aishdas.org> Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav in a different direction. I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the "q" in "Amaleiq".) : I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported : wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher : Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where : we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history. : Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint : in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious : revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of : anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where : the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in : order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal : add a story that isn't needed. : Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or : pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some : of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising, : but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read : historically, I wonder. I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.) Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened" the criteria for such categorization? If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories that defy how the world works. (And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who accept miracles.) In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures. Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid. IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh and av deis din derelict in his duty? The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because they're only ahistoric. I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from within the midrashic-story system. So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..." While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise" far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:54:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty. Rabbi Akiva lived at the > time of the Bar Kochva revolt. R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later. The > vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the > destruction of Bayit Sheni. While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 17:20:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, > Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was > Nasi in Yavneh)" And how many of those feature in any machlokos? Hillel & Shammai had only three, beside the long-running one on smicha. > These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel & Shammai do. Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to dispute? > Hillel and Shammai were certainly > well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their > students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo ra'u". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 18:19:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:19:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 07:02:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? Message-ID: <1505224922640.65779@stevens.edu> Please see the video at http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb produced by the Harabonim of Queens YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 20:16:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:16:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? In-Reply-To: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe > the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were > gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". > Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of > machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the > teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the > lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on! As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one). Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF. * HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim, 1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130 concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora. (All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 08:49:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? Message-ID: <1505317742192.42683@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40) writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until thirteen and a half minutes after sunset. The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 11:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (hankman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:11:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Message-ID: R. Zvi Lampel wrote: ?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help?? CM responds: Yup, I imagine that would be the concordance in his head! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 06:28:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= Message-ID: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 08:54:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:54:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170914155423.GD26813@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av : even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but... Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 09:44:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach In-Reply-To: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> References: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170914164428.GA4289@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is : applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, : might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?.. I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981) count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei. So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod. While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such "tolados". : Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own : law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven? I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of authority is granted. There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of a Noachide court under dinim: The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society. This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10) and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid (Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim 10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim" includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law needs to look like. But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the other 6. This is shitas haRambam (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land. See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 11:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> Message-ID: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min : ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger : (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin was a meat thing in particular. But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the brain. (* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're the consensus, by sheer number.) If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration. It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort to obtain the treif milk. R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:00:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> References: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4636649d-ed8e-bc04-6e80-c299a962507c@sero.name> On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash > et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case > to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. > Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held > like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" > understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, > not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the > brain. You have the PC and CS reversed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1505420943267.43919@stevens.edu> Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170914201537.GB11862@aishdas.org> First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to R Akiva Miller's second post first. On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote: : As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that : takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real : halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the : lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, : but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that : does not apply to Chanukah. I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT) is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function of neis Shabbos. IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation" as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her feel less that she is shouldering the list alone. Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote: : Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. : The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was : "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a : level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why : this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, : because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs : of the home." Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..." But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah kavsah neiro shel olam connection.) The MB too... So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU cites, "only" the nesei keilim. : In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting : the lights is part of that! Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where women can consistently be homemakers..." The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way. BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't know what to make of that. Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular social state? This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book "Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law" https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing, and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes. One paragraph: Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways. The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point: according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations in a range of mitzvot! Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't know): Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal family unit. RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the thesis: Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical, and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single sex. He did not do so. ... Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family, we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids. So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed social structure. RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers, among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular kinds of social structure over others. ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with a husband and wife at the core. ... Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for, community units that comprise family units which comprise individual units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis. A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is so much to say about it. Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield: Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are -- and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 14:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170914210406.GB10180@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote: : There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): : 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the : Tannaim... According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im. According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion) it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over a dechuyah rule). So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and both talmuds. : 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and : Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? To sum up: 1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah. : Why did they let Machlokes fester? ... 2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted, or cannot be taken at face value. a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from the lishkas hagazis. Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post: b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should. And I suggested: c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that distinguishes between them. And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote: : > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won : > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority : > and passed their 18 gezeros. : That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed : group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It : sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either mean - number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5) - number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT sham) So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that would explain why they too got counted. But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 09:28:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:28:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> >From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss : Question: If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition. Answer: He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like an average person, and certainly not Maaser. If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur cholim, miqvah, shuls... I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of the rest of the community. Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. (I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to help, I would appreciate it.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 11:15:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? --------------------- From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 12:22:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170915192219.GD11421@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - : cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools (and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave them some guidelines for defining what that is. But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the complexity of their definition. And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/ poseiq would tell you to compute your share? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 17 07:08:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is the Customer Always Right? Message-ID: <95.E3.03036.1028EB95@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 15:19:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:19:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha > B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to > have a minyan? I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, as compared to wwithout a minyan. I thought that we say it Motzaei Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few days are left and we fear running out of time. Both reasons are even more relevant on Motzaei Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 21:39:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a25b83f-173e-6448-5511-011515a4e304@sero.name> On 18/09/17 18:19, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, > as compared to wwithout a minyan. Without a minyan one can't say the kaddish. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 01:56:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tuitiion Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: RMB wrote: > Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: > Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, > is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW > described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the > differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other > urgent causes? > I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one > may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if > promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are > currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: It is meritorious to support Torah scholars, and you may dedicate a portion of your [maaser kesafim] funds even to support one's own son studying Torah. You may likewise use a portion of these funds to pay for the your adult children's yeshiva gedola, midrasha and college tuition, but you should not draw on these funds for paying tuition while in elementary or high school. [1] However, someone lives a modest lifestyle and still cannot otherwise make ends meet, may draw on these funds even to pay for a portion of his minor children's Jewish day school tuition. [2] Someone who benefits from a scholarship at an institution of Jewish education should prioritize that institution when giving charity, over other institutions. [3] 1: Chatam Sofer YD 249 2: Igrot Moshe YD2 ?113, but Aruch haShulchan YD 249:7 disagrees 3: Oral ruling by Rav Hershel Schachter It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka. I once sent my kids to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we are discussing, since it is a poor community). -- Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 11:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral Message-ID: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> An Aish article notes: >The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >within them. There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first appear in Jewish thought?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 13:33:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom Message-ID: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> The most commonly cited reason that we say "oseh hashalom" rather than "oseh shalom" in kaddish during the 10 days, is that the gematria of hashalom is equivalent to the gematria of Safriel, the malach that "writes" us into the Book. (I just recently read somewhere else: "Hagahos Mordechai [Miseches Rosh Hashanah 720 he states as follows: Safiriel is the Gematria of Oseh and Oseh is the Gematria of Hashalom. Alternatively this hints to the kindness of Hashem that swerves the judgment to merit in a case that the sins and merits are equal, and the verse states "Maaseh Hatzedaka Shalom"." (I don't understand this second reason: the "sholom" in that last phrase doesn't have a "hey") I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their other reasons I am missing?) KvCT! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their > other reasons I am missing?) Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter counts. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:40:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <6d0c6039-0428-0174-88ec-0724ad47e1a5@sero.name> On 19/09/17 14:48, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >> forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >> Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >> imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >> within them. I assume this is in the context of a discussion of the way people in ancient times used to see time as cyclical rather than as progressing, as we moderns see it. > I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. > > Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first > appear in Jewish thought?) The idea that specific days have fixed properties that repeat every time they come around is found everywhere in Chazal. They took it completely for granted, and of course it fits into the cyclical way the ancients saw all of time. But it's clear from the Torah that they *didn't* see time as cyclical. So the author of this article uses the spiral to explain how they did see it. But it's impossible to discuss this entire subject without the insight that there are different ways to see time, and without the two models -- cyclical and progressive -- to contrast, and to propose syntheses as this author does. Chazal did not have the historical perspective to be aware of this whole dichotomy. I suspect they were unaware that the nochrim of their era didn't see time as they did, and that the nochrim were just as unaware that Jews didn't see time as *they* did. Only looking back from 2000 years later is this difference apparent, and we can discuss how the Torah's progressive view of history can be reconciled with dates repeating themselves, by using the spiral analogy. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 08:45:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170925154550.GC23052@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important : >as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, : >are their other reasons I am missing?) : Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the : first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter : counts. At least both the Chassidei Ashkenaz and the Tur held it was. There is no evidence of this line of thought any closer to the actual start of Nusach Ashkenaz. And a number of the Tur's word counts are dependent on flavor of Nusach Ashkenaz. Could well be that the significance is itself part of a bigger machloqes. They could also be taken as post-facto kavvanos, a way keep in mind a pasuq that colors what we mean by the baqashah, rather than causitive. It is interesting to me that the violation of word count gematrios in Nusach Ashkenaz is largely among Chassidim, who we culturally associate as the community most likely to deal in such remez. Except perhaps for Chida and Ben Ish Hai influenced Sepharadim, but they didn't have a nusach that made such claims to ask why they would choose to leave it. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 05:38:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:38:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? Message-ID: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, and what HKB"H wants from us: Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot switch its use). GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 09:30:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 25/09/17 08:38, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, > and what HKB?H wants from us: > Rama Y?D 249:13 (my free translation) ? In any event one shouldn?t > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won?t he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz ? so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 10:19:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:19:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: We change "min kol" to "mikol" to make up for the addition of the extra "l'eila".? So that the word count stays the same.? So yes, we see this kind of thing everywhere, including kaddish. Lisa On 9/19/2017 11:33 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria.? Do we see that elsewhere?? (Or, are > their other reasons I am missing?) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- I leave it to the readers to project if people put a name on as a form of bragging (separate question - is it intent or what observer's perceive that counts?) It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the item is not in danger of being switched in use? GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:29:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170925182902.GA16613@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:37PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An Aish article notes: :> The Jewish model of time is a spiral... : There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it : was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. : The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time : (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. : I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. There is no source, but it's a pretty compelling conclusion given Chazal's description of mo'eid, or chayav kol adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo repeating yetzi'as Mitzrayim annually OT1H, and yet OTOH speaking of history as inexorably running from Adam to the messianic era (and beyond). We might be the first generation consciously aware enough of the issue to think about our use of both language that implies circular time and that of linear time to want to make a synthesis "helical time". (True YU alumni would insist there is no helical time. Meaning comes from the tension of the dialectic; there is no syntheis. ) I don't question the value of lomdus, even though it is utilizing patterns in halakhah or halachic dialectic that weren't made explicit. Yes, that creates a change of error, but when the explanation is strong enough, do we reject the whole concept because the Rambam never spoke about gavra vs cheftza on topics other than oaths? Think how much hashkafah, or specifically Qabbalah, is drawn from just this kind of finding a theory to explain existing statements. This helical time is typical. So, is it a modern chiddush? That isn't a boolean question... to the extent you find this intepretation muchrach, it's inherent in what came bafore. And the the extent you don't, v.v. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:58:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>> Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't :>> glorify oneself with the charity he gives... :> Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their :> donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item :> donated... ... : It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the : item is not in danger of being switched in use? I am personally bothered when there is so much text on the paroches or cloth on the bimah (term?) that it detracts from the aesthetics. I am also bothered when more space is spent naming the donors than naming and perhaps lauding the person in whose memory the donation was given. That said... I think the consensus is that things have fallen to the point that we have two offsetting values that outweigh this ill: 1- When the choice is between collecting multiples more money with giving out honors vs operating on a shoestring and having to cut corners by only taking more purely motivated donations, the extra tzedaqah given is a mitzvah that outweights the alternative. 2- Even someone who has pure motives and wants to give quietly is living in a society that will respond positively if his donation is made public and influences the community. Peer pressure isn't just for teenagers. I think it's parallel to choosing chalitzah as a first choice. It's clear from the pasuq and the content of the ritual that chalitzah is something that in the ideal no one should be encouraged to choose. But as Abba Shaul noted, we don't live in that ideal world, and what was second-rate has become (centuries later) mandatory practice. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 12:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170925190253.GE16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, : as compared to without a minyan... We make a point of demonstrating communal unity in the middle. "Shalom Aleikhem!" Not speaking halachically, as you aren't obligated to greet 9 men, or even really greet anyone. But still... Aside from Zev's example of getting one more qaddish, which is a nice but incidental advantage, it seems to me that QL itself leans toward being a tzibur thing. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:34:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Ben On 9/19/2017 12:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I thought that we say it Motzaei > Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few > days are left and we fear running out of time. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:09:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:09:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <761520c3-faea-cd38-8ba8-ee24f675b3b7@sero.name> On 25/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > cloth on the bimah (term?) mappah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 03:39:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <046338f8-991f-2216-c55d-6002821d57a1@sero.name> On 26/09/17 01:34, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of > Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a > shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Not everyone does that, in fact some don't even say it on Shabbat, and wait until Shavuot. So zrizin doesn't necessarily override avelut. Also many don't do kidush levana until after 7 days from the molad, by which time we're into the deeper avelut. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 06:45:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170926134541.GB23180@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:34:30AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the : 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? ... I am confused. Isn't the implication simply that all else being equal, do it earlier because zerizin, but aveilus is sufficient for not considering all else equal? Why does zerizus being applicable mean that it is necessarily the most urgent halachic principle coming into play? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 11:54:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Over on Areivim, we were yet again discussing the cRc's position that one should not buy coffee from a full Starbucks store that sells food. Here's my take, cut-n-pasted from what I posted there. ... There is a lot of ham and bacon at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=hot-breakfast and poultry at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=sandwiches-panini-and-wraps The cRc's statement refers to these in particular . It also questions your assumption of the ubiquitous use of soap: Chicago Rabbinical Council Guide to Starbucks Beverages May 2013 / June 2015 ... As said, Starbucks shops serve many kosher and non-kosher items, with the most serious non-kosher item being hot meat sandwiches. The standard daily clean-up at Starbucks includes a hot wash of all utensils and some parts of that washing are done without soap. This clean up process significantly challenges the kosher status of the otherwise kosher products and each product must be judged by a competent halachic authority. The cRc has made available their detailed review and analysis of this topic in the spring 2011 edition of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and that article can be found below. Click here to read this article. The good news is that there are many Starbucks locations that do not serve hot meat sandwiches. These are generally the Starbucks kiosks which can be defined as a Starbucks location, usually found in a mall, retail store, a bus or train station or airport, that does not sell hot sandwiches. The cRc is comfortable recommending any drink made from kosher ingredients (even though some others use ingredients that may not be kosher). This list is accurate at this time for stores in the United States based on two and a half years of extensive research and consultation with the cRc's Av Beth Din, Rav Schwartz, shlit"a.... Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. And that is consistent with the lenient majority. We're trying to understand the cRc's ruling. There is no derabbanan here[, to justify another poster's invocation of safeiq derabbanan]. They're saying that the odds of your cup being washed without soap with a plate that held hot bacon or tereifah chicken is high enough that one needs to avoid taking that risk. But that's real nosein ta'am of an issur de'oraisa. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:56pm +0300 someone wrote to Areivim, on a discussion of the cRc's ruling against : I don't drink coffee at all, so I'm not a frequent Starbucks customer, but : I suspect that a sandwich like : https://www.starbucks.com/menu/food/sandwiches-panini-and-wraps/chicken-blt-salad-sandwich?foodZone=9999 : is probably at least 1/60th chicken or bacon. The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 13:17:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women Message-ID: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the topic of leadership/ordination for women. (I am indebted to some of those here who helped sharpen arguments :-) ). I think I have adequately illustrated that their position is based on wrong/unproven facts, poor logic, fuzzy definitions, strained arguments, and inconsistent application of the rules. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need to have a comprehensive and systematic approach to gender and public/leadership. I am happy to respond to questions, critiques and criticisms. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/sneak-peek-an-analysis-of-the-ban-on-women-rabbis/ Noam Stadlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 12:38:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926193827.GA27624@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:56:59AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: :> I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one :> may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if :> promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are :> currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. : From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: ... : It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as : tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his : minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But : what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka.... Agreed, but I don't see how it's obvious. Say your handyman is a pious guy, and rather than not doing business with people who can't afford his full rate, he charges them less for labor. Also, Rn Handyman isn't so willing to take the full hit on total income. Since this is a nice guy, we can assume that if more of the town were wealthier, his usual rate for someone who can beqoshi stretch the budget would be lower. Is the difference in salary tzedaqah? Does it make a difference if Reb Handyman actuall did this accounting and maybe even announced the resulting differential? Or is a baal melakhah's pay rate money owed, and such cheshbonos should be irrelevent. This imaginary scenario was designed to be both parallel and to my mind a somewhat wild line of reasoning. 1- Once you say that any tuition paid beyond the cost for your child is indeed tzedaqah, one needs a pesaq about how to apportion group costs to each individual student. The cost of the class divided by students, then the cost of school administation divided by the student body? Or maybe if a teacher is hired as soon as a class would otherwise grow beyond 25 students, I should be looking at the incremental cost of my child after the need to start the additional class was caused by someone else? And then -- could it depend on if I registered late, or before the number of classes was determined? And don't get me started on who is paying for resource room staff, where there are parallels to the above AND the reality that different kids would be using different amount of the service. So that my kid's 1 hour per week may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to get a math specialist, whereas another student's 5 hours of readin help is with a teacher they needed otherwise. Who pays what? 2- Once you make it tzedaqah, rather than considering tuition as debt, all could be fine-and-well halachically. And so it can come out of maaser kesafim. (All the more so because we aren't even sure maaser kesafim is a din.) And the schools like this, because it frees up maaser money for people who would otherwise need scholarship. But the line you're replying to was arguing that there is a downside for the school as well. As the teshuvah we started from notes -- debt is a higher priority than tzedaqah. You don't pay maaser out of money owed. And so, the school is marketing a din that may mean /less/ money for them than if the halakhah were that the full tuition should be treated as a debt. position for a sch chakhamim don't have to pay city defenses; maybe a good kid who doesn't see the principal should be considered : to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition : may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we : are discussing, since it is a poor community). GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 21:47:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> References: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4d52778a-5fe9-0dae-592c-ff6316a77877@sero.name> On 26/09/17 14:54, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health > department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough > regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. They wash in soapy water first, and then in clear water. The cRc's position is that soapy water, which is hotter than yad soledes bo but cooler than kashering temp, prevents the transmission of treife taam from one keli to another when they are washed together, but it does *not* render the treife keli permanently pagum. The treife keli comes out just as treif as it was, so when it's then put into *clean* hot water together with the kosher keli the treife taam transfers. > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical substance at all, so it's not surprising that even if it permeates the keli's entire structure, which we assume it does, it doesn't add to its mass. This is also why the bracha on coffee is shehakol, not ha'etz, because there is no substance of the coffee bean in the final product; only taam, smell, and colour are transferred in the brewing, all of which are assumed to have zero mass. Which makes the existence of instant coffee a conundrum, and casts doubt on the practise of saying shehakol also on coffee made from instant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Tabory via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom Message-ID: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. Yosef Tabory From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 08:26:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170927152646.GD1177@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote: : Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of : the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel : minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)... Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah. I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian "Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon, they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation -- 10 yemei teshuvah. To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh. : Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, : the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not : wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought : that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh : Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh) had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom" in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify abandoning it. ----- While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef, let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in "Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi yontef nusach for the joke to work. Why are so many Jews overweight? Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we sing: Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein! Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8), apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates! GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:30:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:30:33 +0000 Subject: “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux Message-ID: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> >From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")? A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart" (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13). IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me) GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:29:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:29:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds Message-ID: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense that A gets more credit(schar) than B? My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish, etc.) Thoughts? GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 19:34:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom Message-ID: . Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz. I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. Specifically: Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912 Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928 Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940 (Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.) Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949 Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950 Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960 The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960 Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982 There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this machlokes. However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different, and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America (who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 18:20:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical > substance at all, ... I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical substance? I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* be removed by cleaning. Gmar chasima tova to all, Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:21:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? Message-ID: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Please see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v I personally have always used money for Kapporas was. This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly mistreated before they are used for Kapporas. IIRC a few years ago it was discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water or food and died. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:31:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had to be discarded. After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost everywhere with the kapporos chickens. Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim: it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here. I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko. But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:48:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical >> substance at all, ... > > I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence > that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical > substance? I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a modern person to wrap ones head around. > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must > be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* > be removed by cleaning. If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing left to kasher! All you've done is clean the surface. There was never a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on the surface. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:54:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7096234e-1e3d-84c3-bb8b-dcfebecbb79f@starways.net> On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 10:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170928170022.GC32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence :> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical :> substance? : I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for : a modern person to wrap ones head around. I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT) about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion: : On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got :> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is :> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean :> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the :> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... : If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get : it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I : always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance : absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel : possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we understand an experience intellectually. This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs, etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience. My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer, than on the physics of the objects being utilized. Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance (like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance" (as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the past agreed with. If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked: > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the whole pot is indeed tainted. I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 12:03:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v ... : This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly : mistreated before they are used for Kapporas... That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens, not the minhag. This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag. The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag. In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it? Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori. (It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.) And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and "ve'ein leshanos". Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa") or not been doing kapparos at all. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 11:52:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588ee3662a16491c9404fcc82bfe2e8a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom. Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 28 22:03:26 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them > a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate object such as money. You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. > Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 29 13:15:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the : >Maharil)... : : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather from his own money. (Shelah) : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a meilitz yosher before going into din. I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the pidyon of the person. :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree.... Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag vasiqin"? GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht : Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a : life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it : with an inanimate object such as money. : : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but : the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after : kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or : else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The : Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, : since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. : : : >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- : >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were : doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand : it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. : : -- : Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, : zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all : _______________________________________________ : Avodah mailing list : Avodah at lists.aishdas.org : http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org : GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From zev at sero.name Fri Sep 29 13:33:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > : >Maharil)... > : > : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it > : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... > > Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather > from his own money. (Shelah) As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... > > Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is > inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer > to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a > meilitz yosher before going into din. Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka. Plus, kaporos is not done right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend doing it as much as a few days earlier). > I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have > primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation? > I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the > pidyon of the person. The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. > :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. > > : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means > : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its > : pedigree.... > > Source? It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". > He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously > suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves > pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin > to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition > fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag > vasiqin"? The same thing. Although don't know who gave this heter someone must have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we don't understand it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:05:15 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog Message-ID: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one? From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:14:07 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to another book which I don't own). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Sep 30 13:35:00 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: If I can mix actuality with the idea below: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. Ben On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the > Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after > kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or > else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer > Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since > it's less embarrassing to the recipient. From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:22:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c1fa29c-aa4b-122a-0dce-bfe50d5e5e32@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 > minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of > Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). > > What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to > another book which I don't own). Shulchan aruch OC 649. See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like the Rambam. Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being covered in more red berries than leaves, etc. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 19:18:58 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov Message-ID: . A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group: > The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when > Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is > known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is > a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one > is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in > for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving > lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed > and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good > both physically and spiritually! When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos. My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov? I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos. Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years, I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic - allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running, Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote "Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".) So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Looking forward to your responses. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sat Sep 30 18:03:12 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171001010312.GA17048@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". : > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will : > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give : > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather : > from his own money. (Shelah) : : As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do : kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. : Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos : is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give : tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. : >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is : >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer : >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a : >meilitz yosher before going into din. : : Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama : and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all : of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) As you yourself write, epmashsis added: : The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, : instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can : buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. : >: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : >: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : >: pedigree.... : > : >Source? : : It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a : plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find "vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim. Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless. The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the chain was already broken for a couple of generations. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 21:05:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3040f2fc-ea44-2eaf-3016-6c25f3b8b9c6@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and > sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the > mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only > applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar one may buy the cheaper one. The second opinion is that even if both are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a third more for the better one. This rule is not just for esrog, it's in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b). > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you can)? If > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a > hiddur to buy one? It means neither one. You left out a word. The Mechaber's language is "*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish". One should buy the better one, *if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior one. If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it. But there's certainly no restriction if you want to. The gemara says "Up to a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:25:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If I can mix actuality with the idea below: > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 > > What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with > tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or > honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that > affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in > Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck. There's nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-) Especially on Erev Yom Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah. The scandal is that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah. If they shechted them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared. [Email #2] On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". >:> And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will >:> be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give >:> maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather >:> from his own money. (Shelah) >: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do >: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. >: Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos >: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give >: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person > to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. We clearly have switched topics. There is no other way to read the Rama. The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka. The Rama says that we should not change this minhag. Then he says how it should be done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white. *Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the person. and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam". It's a pidyon just like pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the poor, we buy it back from tzedaka. >:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is >:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer >:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a >:> meilitz yosher before going into din. >: Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama >: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all >: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... > The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor > person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly. The minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them money. On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable. See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned earlier. So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery. See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to the poor. (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.) > (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about > a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes > no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) Where did you get this idea? There's nothing about it in the source we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen. The pasuk from Iyov is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" that we will shecht instead of this "gever". It has nothing to do with doing a mitzvah. Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov. > As you yourself write, epmashsis added: >: The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, >: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can >: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this. Giving it to the poor is a separate minhag. BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries or something, but you think it's good enough for them. This isn't a logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money prevents it. On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy day). >:>: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means >:>: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its >:>: pedigree.... This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an old minhag". But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised what it was. "Vosik" does not mean old. You're confusing it with "`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; strong; distinguished". "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a distinguished scholar". "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee distinguished among the nations". "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the conscientiously pious men of former days." So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn because they can't sleep anyway:-) [Email #3] PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really. https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7 defines it in leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced". So even when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time itself but to the experience gained over that time. The etymology is not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy". It does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, but of experience. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 1 19:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" Message-ID: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> 1) Balaam advocates the destruction of an entire people. He is a hired gun (or mouth) who has exploited his prophetic gift and is willing to help implement a genocide for the right price. This type of individual has separated himself from all people, hence, this position of his is coded in his very name Balaam, "B'li Am," "without a people." 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is called an "aton.? Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of the physical. But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey, therefore his donkey speaks to him -- the inference being that Balaam has descended to an animalistic level, and that is the symbolism of the donkey talking to him. I see it as "chamor" in the sense of "heavy" referring to Abraham, since he carries so much more weight than Balaam. On the other hand, Balaam's donkey is called ?aton,? very similar to the word "etnan" which means a "harlot's pay? ? quitet fascinating since Balaam prostituted himself with the intention of fulfilling Balak's request. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.? Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 2 08:25:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: RMB wrote: > IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than > Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ > that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what > the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions > in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) > believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in > 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. Indeed, I recall, upon dealing with those various shittos while in RIETS, particularly as covered by Rav Charlop in a shiur of his, that Satmar and Rav Kook are a lot closer to each other than to Agudah & Rav Soloveitchik. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 09:14:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:14:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?What_is_the_correct_way_to_pronounce_Hashem?= =?cp1255?q?=92s_name_in_Shmoneh_Esrei_and_other_brachos=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170703161444.GC18193@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Halacha Yomis ... : A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D ... "We have : a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, : that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY : -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf : Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." First, we know from seifer Shoferim that different shevatim had different accents, such that Shevet Ephraim (like Litvaks of a much later date) pronounced as right-dotted shin the same as a sin or samekh. So how can we talk about a single accent even at Har Sinai? I therefore assume RSZE Hy"d was saying that you need to use your mesorah's patach-cholam-qamatz, as he spells out in the rephrasing. And that these vowels are what's misinai. Which is also problematic, as the division of various possible vowel alophones into specific phonemes probably didn't happen until Teverya. This next paragraph may make your eyes glaze over. It justifies the previous one, but feel free to skip it if it bores you and move on to the next point: Which explains why Bavel's nequdos don't line up one-to-one with the ones we use today -- one symbol for segol and patach and one symbol for qamatz qatan and cholam with a different one for. And the prior Israeli system fits Sepharadi pronounciation, fewer symbols showing less differentiation, but it could simply be less precise. The way we still have one symbol for qamatz qatan and qamatz gadol, or sheva na and sheva nach. (Unless you are using a "simanim" or other non-standard printing. Unicode actually supports this differentiation, if you find a font and a text file that distinguishes.) One symbol does not mean one phoneme. But it hints at how the locals viewer the vowels. Like Rashi, who echoes the Babylonian single segol-patach system when he refers to a segol as a patach qatan. (If you are still reading this paragraph, you'd probably enjoy our mesorah email list. Ask me to sign you up!) R Rallis Weisenthal (CC-ed), in his siddur in memory of Qh"Q Bad Homburg pg LXV (on opensiddur.org), lists traditional Ashkneazi cholam sounds, claiming that they're all dipthongs. ("Claiming", because I am not sure he's right on one of them): Poland, Austria-Hungary komatz chirik O^i [t]oy Lithuania, Russia segol chirik Ae^i [p]ay Northern Germany, Holland patach shuruk A^u [h]ow Southern Germany, Switzerland, France, Latvia, England, North America komatz shuruk O^u [g]o I think the Lithuanian cholam was originally more like /oe/ a sound halfway between /o/ and a tzeirei. (And the /e/ of the tzeirei isn't quite the same as a segol.) What he is describing reflects later Polish influence, a compromise position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio could help here. And I think the British cholam actually is rounder than a qamatz, like a long /O/ in English. And like a long /O/, there is a tendency to add a rounding /w/ (eg "blow"), but it's not always there. Maybe a dipthong of qamatz qatan and a /w/, which is shitas haGra. Not entirely different than what RRW writes, but also not quite as implied from his description. Anyway, he has a continuing discussion by R' Y Kramer againt using a /y/ or /i/ sound to round a cholam. Go to the above link. It's too long and two bi-lingual for me to cut-n-paste here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 10:03:51PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. : However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is : called an "aton." : Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) : suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of : the physical. : But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey... Thus the root "aleph-tav", meaning together with (eg "ito bateivah"). The Gra makes this point about riding a chamor being mastery of one's chomer vs being together with one's ason. I bet RAK cites him. He lurks here, but I took the liberty of CC-ing RAK so as to get his attention. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 11:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The Maharal -- preceded the Gra on this point. Here is a paragraph from the new edition of Explorations (anticipated 20th anniversary edition) The denouement of history is in our hands. The Mashiach will be revealed in clouds of glory if we are worthy; if we are unworthy, our redemption will be of a far less exalted nature. If we are deserving, the clouds will be revealed sooner; if not, the redemption will take longer, and the process will be slow and plodding -- but the redemption will surely come. And just as the clouds are an image that is laden with meaning, representing man's ability to recognize and connect to the metaphysical plane, so, too, the image of the Messiah as a poor man riding on his donkey is no mere literary device: According to mystical sources, this metaphor holds the key to the redemption itself: The Zohar[1] explains that the role of Mashiach is to ride on the chamor, to subdue the physical.[2] ________________________________ [1] Zohar Bemidbar 207a ???? ??? ? ?? ??/? ????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?????"?. ?????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??????????, (????? ??) ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????"? ?????????. ?????? ???? ??????, ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? Those of the right are all merged in one called "donkey," and that is the donkey of which it is written, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" [Devarim 22:10]. That is also the donkey which the King Mashiach shall control. (Zohar, Bemidbar 207a) [2] See comments of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael chapter 40. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? - ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ?"? ???????? ???"? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????...??"? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. Can I repeat that second line on list? As for the first line... In general, email lists are failing. And yet, I don't want to move Avodah to a medium that encourages quick and short answers. If Avodah can't remain a place for in-depth discussion, I'll let it fade away. Mail-Jewish, the grand-daddy in the field, is coming out with a digest every two weeks or so. Although it's healthier than Avodah in terms of breadth of contributor pool. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 07:54:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it Message-ID: Recently, someone quoted a friend as saying something about how doing something for the wrong reason could constitute making the Mishna Burah into an Avodah Zara. Or something like that, I don't remember exactly, and I spent almost an hour trying to find the post, so that's why I can't quote it. Anyway, that person was wondering where the idea came from, and I found the following in the current issue of Jewish Action, also available online at https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ > Love of Torah does not always translate into love of > people ? or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk > caustically noted that increased religious observance is not > always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather > sometimes it is for the sake of ?worshipping the Shulchan Aruch.? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 11:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad Message-ID: Mishnah Megillah 4:9 teaches us: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad just like he blesses for the good." That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are talking about two different situations: If one has actually experienced something, then he must bless God for the good *OR* for the bad, whichever applies to the experience. There is no need to be inclusive, to mention that He is responsible for both. But when one speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when he must mention both the good and the bad. Or perhaps he can speak in generalities, but he must be careful not to suggest that God does *only* good things, to the exclusion of painful things: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that He *does* good. The things He does is described mostly in terms of the life He gives us, and the miracles that He does. (It is true that at one point it we thank Him for "tovosecha" - Your good things - but that is secondary, coming after "niflaosecha".) But then we turned to the fourth bracha of Birkas Hamazon, usually referred to as "Hatov v'haMaytiv" - "the One who is good, and does good" - from the central words. And then it continues: "Hu haytiv, hu maytiv, hu yaytiv lanu" - "He has done good, He does do good, and He will do good to us." And it closes with: "He will never deprive us of anything good." Where is the bad? In what way is this bracha not a violation of this mishna in Megilla? I concede that we've left out the Mishna's word "yizacher", but I don't think that is relevant. It appears to go directly against what the Gemara Megilla wrote, "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad." Is there any way to reconcile this gemara with this bracha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 13:44:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/07/17 14:54, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But when one > speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when > he must mention both the good and the bad. No. There is no need to mention all the things He does. Nor is there any need, when thanking Him for the good things He does, to include also the other things He does. What one may not do is declare that He is *to be thanked for* the good things He does, which implies He is *not* to be thanked for the other things he does. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:15:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered Message-ID: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:17:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:17:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 08:00:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170706150007.GD11698@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:17:31PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? : If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at : all minyanim? By whom? In an alternate reality, where I went into kelei qodesh instead of Wall Street programming jobs, there is (would have been?) a movement by now called Mevaqshei Tov veYosher, a/k/a Other-Focused Orthodoxy (OFO). The OFO flagship shul, Yishrei Leiv, hosts AishDas programming, of course, and at this point in alternate time, has a number of ve'adei mussar, shiurim in machashavah and workshops in tefillah. And, in line with OFO ideology, the rule for who can correct the baal qeri'ah is simple. The only people who can do so are (would be): 1- the gabbaim, 2- the rav, and 3- next week's baal qeri'ah . (Everyone else should go to the gabbaim quietly. Even at the expense of an occasional repeated pasuq. But also gabbaim would need to know diqduq and be able to field the simpler questions of which mistakes actually require correction.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 7 15:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:51:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION Message-ID: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> I sent an email to AVODAH where I mistakenly wrote that Rav Rivkas from Rabbeinu HaGra's family did not write Be'er Hagolah seeking to correct their misspelling. I wrote Bay.ur Hagolah. NEITHER is correct. He wrote B' er HaGolah. there is a shva under the Bais. I ws mistakenly thinking of ppl mistakenly saying Biur HaGra instead of Bay.ur Hagra. My mistake but as least I was thinking of the Gra. :) Reb Joel -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:51:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] the desire to be remembered Message-ID: <000001d2f823$a6448d60$f2cda820$@actcom.net.il> I would call this the need for recognition or the desire for kavod. I think it is a yetzer akin to the need for food or the desire for sex, the yetzer hara that is 'tov la'adam' as Bereshit Rabba puts it. Without the appetite for food, we would probably die of malnutrition; without the desire for sexual pleasure we would probably not want to procreate, and without the desire for kavod/recognition, we would probably be sociopaths. Our need for recognition (desire to be remembered, if you prefer) enables everything from toilet training to basic manners to our desire to contribute positively to society. If we did not need the approval of our parents and our peers, we would never get far enough along the path of social interaction to learn the rewarding nature of altruism and doing good for the sake of doing good. The process of socialization makes us human. Without our need for kavod/approval/recognition, it is hard to see how we could ever be educated. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 14:24:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:24:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India Message-ID: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties between Israel and India? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 19:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India In-Reply-To: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> References: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 08/07/17 17:24, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol > worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties > between Israel and India? I don't see why. There were treaties between our ancient kings and foreign rulers, pretty much all of whom served AZ. And of course there's the treaty between Yaacov & Lavan, which was explicitly backed by each party's deity/ies. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 08:24:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION In-Reply-To: <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> References: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59624AA6.4070406@schnurassociates.com> at least I know that there are some people actually reading what I send out, so TY 2 Rabbi Ralbag, shimon, Capt Dan and I think Mendy for responding. as for the rabbi's comment, I am pleased to see/read that he has a good sense of humor. I also learned how to spell email in Hebrew. My announced CORRECTION reminds me of the incident with Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he had a prober for being Rosh Hayeshiva for KOL TORAH. he was giving his shiur and someone corrected him. He stopped, thought about it and then said 'taeeti" figuring he blew his chance for getting the job. Afterwards they told him he was selected as RY and he supposedly said "but I blew it when I made that mistake." Just the opposite they said. We want someone who is able to admit he made a mistake. and with that story, I end this adventure. :) B'yidedus, Joel > Rav Ralbag > July 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM > ?? JOEL: > ???? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. > ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????-??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? > ????? !! > ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? - ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? > ??? !!!!??? > ??? ???? ????? ?????-????? ! > ????? ???? ???? ??? ?-?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ??????? ??? ????? > ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? - ?????, ???? ????? ???? > ???? !!! > ??????? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, > ???? ????? On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, mendy stern wrote: > So you want to be the Rosh Yeshiva? Only if the yeshiva davens nusach HaGra! Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 19:36:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? ---------------- My shul does not, except that the previous (now deceased Rav) was very against it, quoting the Tur about embarrassing the Baal Korei. That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 20:00:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:00:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <04ba01d2f928$bced1db0$36c75910$@gmail.com> R' JR: R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? ------------------------ Maslow's highest level in his Hierarchy of Needs (in its later permutations) is self-transcendence. I think that's what you're talking about. Here's some further on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcenden ce KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 02:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:45:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ================================ We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 09:24:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: ?Pinhas? has turned back Chamati, My wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11) So, Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous, difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamati (my wrath), the two outside letters chet and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters, mem and tav, read meit ? death. The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meit) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai). (Also, if you remove the "W" (for Wilderness) from "wrath" and replace it with "O" (for Obedience to God), the ?orath? can be rearranged to read Torah). Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live. Norman Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 11:58:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:37am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote to Areivim: : In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla : attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. : : My review and analysis of his failed approach to halacha is at : http://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/2017/7/7/the-not-so-orthodox-embrace-of-the-new-age-movement Although RBR posted to Areivim, I have an Avodah question. To quote: > To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For > example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has > been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to > the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved > as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies > it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, > or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it > globally. And the article discusses things like auras and other New Age ideas that if traced back to their origins one will find AZ. Is it all that different than the gemara's discussion or wearing a fox's tooth, where even a Rationalist like the Rambam (Shabbos 19:13) permits? Darkhei Emori are allowed for refu'ah (AZ 67a). Also Rashi (Chullin 77b "yeish") which according to the Panim Me'iros (1:36) includes any act to the body to be healed, but not "spooky action at a distance" (to quote Dr Einstein out of context). The Ran (Chullin ad loc) based on this Rashi explicitly permits any act we know works to heal, even if the workings are metaphysical. So is the difference only in which metaphysics I personally believe is real, and which is -- again, IMHO -- "woowoo"? And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? Are the laws of tereifos, which say put despite later findings about what an animal can live 12 months with, and what not, typical and precedent to say we go with Chazal's science, law is law, ignore the science? Or is it an exception because tereifos is halakhah leMoshe miSinai? I could see the standard of medical testing being decided by that question... Or... when it comes to which saqanos one is allowed to risk, the standard is normal and accepted. If people tend to climb trees to pick dates, it is mutar to get a job risking a fall from the top of a date-palm. Perhaps medicine too is defined by societal standards. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 12:27:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> References: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> Message-ID: And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 14:47:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170710214723.GA29132@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to : be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this : desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's : knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or : general society)? >From a recent blog post of mine, The Interpersonal Aspect of Parah Adumah : To illustrate how the Yerushalmi works, I enjoy taking a rather extreme case -- Berakhos 7:1, 51b: 1. Rav Huna said: Three who eat, this one by himself, this one by himself, and this one by himself, who then mix together should bentch with a mezuman. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three people, so that each ate with an obligation of zimun, even if from different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may make a zimun] when they ate together. 1. Rabbi Yonah [commented] on that which Rab Hunah [was just quoted as saying]: If [the kohein] dipped three hyssop sprigs [into the water made with the ashes of a parah adumah], this one by itself and this one by itself, and mixed them [the hyssops] together, one may sprinkle [the person needing taharah] with them. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three sprigs, so that each sprig was dipped as part of a group of three, even if different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may may be used for sprinkling parah adumah water] when they were dipped together. ... But what justifies this comparison? Is it really an expectation that all groups of three ought to be alike, regardless of the topic or the sort of group? In 1973, Ernest Becker wrote a book on philosophy and psychology titled "The Denial of Death". To give a thumbnail of his basic thesis, here are some snippets from [38]The Becker Foundation's "Theories" page: "[T]he basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death." ... The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of mortality. Since human beings have a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we can transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving the symbolic half. Becker describes human pursuit of "immortality projects" (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things. Still, for Becker, the only suitable source of meaning is transcendent, cosmic energy, divine purpose... Becker develops an idea that strikes most of us naturally. A central -- and perhaps THE central -- piece of our drives to contribute to community and to pursue a higher meaning is because these both overcome our own death. What I give my children outlives me in my children, grandchildren and beyond. What I contribute to the Jewish People is eternal because our nation is eternal. What I add to the development of humanity from Adam to the messiah outlives me in impacting the lives of generations to come. Fear of death, the need to embark on "immortality projects" can push us to expand our souls to beyond our mortal bodies. As Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to his substance and body. Above that one is someone who feels that his "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above that one is someone who can include in his "ani" all of his household and family.... And there are more levels in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the world and worlds are his "ani," and he himself is only one small limb in all of creation.... Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and [even] all of creation. The parah adumah is about overcoming death. A person who witnessed or experienced another's death is told to go through a ritual of changing tracks... He not only sees three sprigs from a scrubby bush, but also is thinking about joining together and how he can join with others. How to turn that conversation around from death and its reminder that we are merely physical beings toward death as a drive to go beyond that. We should not forget the most cryptic (choq-like) element of the parah adumah. ... [I]t requires that someone from the community reach out to them, even at their own expense. A true uniting of someone who might be thinking about death and man-as-mammal back into being a person contributing meaning to a larger community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 19:08:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on > chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better > standards for testing medicine? R' Joel Rich responded: > The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud > certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and > correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with > sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what > was known to them in their time." > > I'd appreciate specific examples I recently tried to learn a bit about Techum Shabbos. I was very surprised to find an entire siman (#399, with eleven se'ifim), giving details of exactly how the techum is to be measured. For example, the first se'if specifies that we must use a linen rope exactly 50 amos long. I was very surprised that the halacha would write such things, rather than simply presuming that we'd be smart enough to use whatever procedures are generally accepted as accurate. This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do it. The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective one, and tradition might rule. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 21:51:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> R' JR: We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. -------------------------------- I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 04:56:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fb6f6b1-b8cd-4075-09ea-8f770a1b66bd@zahav.net.il> If the person is reading from a full Bible, I will just listen. If I am not sure what book he's reading from, I'll read it to myself. IIRC the Mishna Bruria takes it as a given that the reason most shuls don't read from the klaf is because of the cost. Given today's incomes and fancy shuls, that shouldn't be a factor. And yet, it is the rare beit knesset where they read from a klaf. Ben On 7/11/2017 6:51 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? > > KT, > MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 15:50:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170711225048.GA29349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be : corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to : themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach : Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. : : Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? I will confirm. ... WRT shuls that aren't leining from kelaf. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 17:09:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 18:31:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170712013159.GA6359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, : who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a : surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, : they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do : it. Say I were to use a shorter rope. Well, then my measurments would include more dips and bumps. Whereas the 50 ammah rope might cut a direct path, a shorter rope would have two segments, in different angles. The measure would be longer than if you just cut the tangent. (And in fact, since most landscape is fractal, or nearly fractal until you get cown to molecules, if your "ruler" were smaller than a grain of sand, you could probably measure 50 amos along the wrinkles of the surface within an arm's reach of where you started.) So, the length of the rope will actually change the final measure. The navi implies that a shorter rope would be /too/ accurate, forcing a smaller measure than necessary. The weight of the chain means that sagging is more common, as lest if you aren't a surveyor. Or maybe the exact strechiness of linen - less than wool but more than metal, is also part of the actual measure. ... : The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might : agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better : procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring : distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular : procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective : science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective And to reframe where I was going above in these terms: There are times when Chazal are not trying to establish objective facts. (Or, to revive another old thread and my hangup about how halakhah defines metzi'us: ... to establish as objectively as possible those facts that could potentially enter our subjective experience.) In nidon didan, the question would be: In order for a treatment not to be derekh emori, and to be allowed on Shabbos where medicine for a choleh sh'ein bo saqanah would be allows, does it 1- have to be established as potentially effect to the best we can establish it? or 2- have to be accepted as potentially effective by chazaqah, which is the normal rule for justifying presumption in cases of doubt? How objetive are we being asked to be? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 12 19:06:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:06:59 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not Shechted? Meaning, if we have a creature that cannot be Shechted, but it is not a non-Kosher species, it might be a Neveilah but be Kosher to eat because there is no prohibition on eating Neveilah. The non-fully gestated cow sheep or goat, even if it is born in the normal manner, is not classified in Halacha as Bakar or Tzon. See Rashi Chulin 72b end of Mishneh. It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 03:33:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170713103351.GD14756@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:54:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ :> Love of Torah does not always translate into love of :> people -- or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk :> caustically noted that increased religious observance is not :> always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather :> sometimes it is for the sake of "worshipping the Shulchan Aruch." In R' Shlomo Wolbe, Alei Shur, vol II, "Frumkeit" , speaks of halachic obervant not for the sake of worshipping G-d, but speaks to why one would "worship the SA" if it isn't about G-d. A translation of the opening: > Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge to connect to the Creator. This > instinct is also found in animals. King David said, " The young lions roar > after their prey, and seek their food from G-d." (Psalms 104:21) "He gives > to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." (Psalms 147:9) > There is no need to understand these verses as [mere] figures of > speech -- animals have an instinctive sense that there exists One who > is concerned about their sustenance. This instinct [also] operates in > man -- on a higher level, of course. This natural frumkeit [instinct] > assists us in our service of G-d, and without this natural assistance > our service would would be extremely heavy upon us. However, frumkeit, > like any other instinctive urge that operates within man, is naturally > egotistical and self-centered. Accordingly, frumkeit drives a person to > do only that which is good for himself -- [in contrast, positive] actions > between man and his fellow man, as well as wholehearted actions between > man and G-d are not fueled by frumkeit. One who bases his service on it > alone remains egocentric. Even if he were to impose many stringencies > upon himself, he would not become a man of kindness, and he would not > reach [the level of] altruistic service. This is what necessitates that > we base our service specifically on intellect... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 16:31:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:00:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3abd2947-8a52-7433-c908-731af71507b2@sero.name> On 13/07/17 19:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr > Gouraud of the US. Google misinforms you. See, e.g., http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1412.htm#20 Or, lehavdil, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/1935454 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:37:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> R' MB: The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. --------------------------------- Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which was intended for facial hair. KT, MYG P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:11:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20170714151122.GB32531@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: : Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which : was intended for facial hair. It says that the poor "waxed" themselves with sid; and I am assumign that's not for skin as sensitive as cheeks. The rich used soles. Was this as an abrasive? Is fine flour even abrasive, or (as I seem to recall of today's grindings) -- soft? I think the rich used white makeup. And benos melakhim used shemen hamor, which we are told is acidic olive oil from underripe olives. While I do not doubt that benos melakhim tried this a means to reduce hair growth (the gemara says it also ma'adan habasar) I do doubt it worked. More recently (meaning, up to the mass production of depilatories) in Europe, cat's urine (for the ammonia, a strong base) or vinegar (an acid) were used. Both were believed to prevent or reduce hair growth, not remove what did gwo. But both failed double-blind testing. : P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use : wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. Many NA nations also tend to produce far less facial hair than most Jewish men to start with. I guess people can learn to get used to it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714152753.GA14639@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:59PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not : Shechted? In his Bar Mitzvah derashah, R' Chaim Brisker proved that neveilah and tereifah were aspects of the same underlying issur. Thus explaining (among other points I do not remember) why the Rambam holds that a neveilah and a tereifah can be metz'tarfos to a kezayis issur. Which would imply that WRT eating, all non-shechted meat is the same, and the issur is the lack of shechitah, not the tum'as neveilah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:47:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714154729.GB14639@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies : that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that : contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad : just like he blesses for the good." But that doesn't mean he must bless for the bad whenever he blesses for the good. Which is I think the chiluq that resolves the problems you raised. : That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say : one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one : experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On : *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is : irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Actually, even painful effects of the same occasion. Like the textbook case: Inheriting a large some of money requires making both Dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. : Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are : talking about two different situations... I think they are both talking about the good and tragic in the same situations. The first mishnah is prohibiting someone from even implying in a non-response context that when experiencing tragedy, one can skip Dayan ha'emes. : So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually : followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It : turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is : mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that : He *does* good.... Mah beinaihu? After all, all His "Middos" are about appearances and how the effects of his Action look to us. And actually, it pretty explicitly says in one point that it's about G-d appearing to us as Good -- "'haTov' shimkha". But as I opened, I didn't see Megillah as saying when we offer general thanks, it must be about both. Rather, he cannot be the kind of peson that skips thanking Him for those things He does "for our own good" (to paraphrase the stereotypical parent line). And thus, no problem in the 4th berakhah of bentching, either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:08:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: . R' Meir G Rabi asked: > It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just > like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. Why can't a horse be shechted? Is it missing the simanim? Of course, it would still be assur to eat the horse because it is a tamay species, but would that prevent one from doing a valid shechita? (I vaguely recall a case where a choleh sheyesh bo sakana was prescribed pork by his doctor, and the rav told him to shecht the chazir.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:02:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of him that is generally accepted as accurate? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:26:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure > I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone > reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only > the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go > 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? I have no idea what you mean by "litvishe" in this context. Do you mean Nusach Ashenaz, or Yeshivish, or In A Yeshiva, or something else? Anyway, in the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls and yeshivos that I have attended, virtually no one reads the haftara to himself, regardless of whether the Reader is reading from a klaf, a printed Tanach, or a Chumash. And those few who *do* read it to themselves are (unfortunately) loud enough to make it difficult to hear the Reader. In the Nusach Sefard shuls I've been to, there much more people reading to themselves. In fact, the Reader often doesn't even attempt to raise his voice so that others can hear him. But I've attended Nusach Sefard shuls rarely enough that I cannot venture a guess about the percentages. R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:23:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:23:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185632c6b5e74915992256cfd1207daf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ because I assumed that one was not being yotzeih with that reading but one's own Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 20:00:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:00:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes > are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of > the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an > educational thing"? I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. There is a chiyuv for a tzibur to read the Torah, although not on any individual to hear it. Even if ten men come into shul after krias hatorah they do not have to make it up, but if it was not read at all then the tzibur must make it up. But with the haftarah even if it was not read at all they need not make it up; this shows that there is no chiyuv, and therefore nothing that can be said not to have been fulfilled. Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:24:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? Or to be less pretencious: *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos on the other side? My wife is a righty and we use joint accounts. We are both listed as owners, and both of our names were on the mortgage. Even if I were supposed to hang my mezuzos on the left, are we shutefim in owning the house and therefore it should follow the rightward norm? I asked R' Gidon Rothstein, since it was his recent post on Torah Musings that launched my wondering, and he felt that it would go by the assumption that typical people coming in and out of the house are righty, and the owner's handedness shouldn't matter. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 08:25:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> References: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/07/17 22:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the > baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? > > Or to be less pretencious:*Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his > mezuzos on the other side? I wouldn't expect it, because I don't see any sevara to differentiate between houses based on who the owner is. Mezuzah is (lich'orah) a chovas cheftza, and the house is not left-handed! (See http://tinyurl.com/y9btfa9c , who cites R Chaim Brisker, Stencil #3) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/2017 6:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes >> are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of >> the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an >> educational thing"? > > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let > alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply that it's not just casual reading? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170716193026.GA17994@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that : imply that it's not just casual reading? to strengthen the point, that "we" includes Sepharadim, who don't make berakhos on minhagim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 19:16:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28c39ae9-0df9-89c0-ea06-a5e1b0b700a7@sero.name> On 16/07/17 15:20, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let >> alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. > > But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply > that it's not just casual reading? It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a missed haftara. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:42:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The problem with OU DE In-Reply-To: References: <1500310874499.90870@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170718214244.GA27595@aishdas.org> On 7/17/2017 7:03 PM, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: > Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a > Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel > bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is > that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not > simultaneously. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote: : Why not? Bateil is bateil. See Chullin 11b. Dagim that "alu" into a qe'ara of meat may be eaten with milchig. But going on a plate of meat -- what does that mean? Does it mean cooking? Ashkenazim hold, "'alu' -- aval lo nisbashlu". It's na"t bar na"t. The Tur, the YD 95, the BY's discussion of the Rivan and Tosafos, Rama YD s' 2, the Shakh s"q 3, and the AhS s' 5,11-15 assert as much halakhah lema'aseh. The way you treat bitul, there would be no such thing as nosein ta'am. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:24:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: <596E7C94.5030109@schnurassociates.com> Our K'vasikin minyan at the Young Israel of Ave k in Flatbush, K & East 29, (45 minutes before HaNetz on Shabbos and YT, 30 minutes on cholo shel moed and RH), reads from a klaf only al pi HaGra and only the baal k'riah reads while everyone else just listens and answers awmen (no BHUS) -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos > on the other side? Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it on the right side of the one who enters." And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 16:47:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:47:22 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: R Akiva Miller asked - why can a horse not be Shechted? A horse cannot be Shechted the same way that a G cannot perform Shechitah. Shechitah is not a mechanical action performed to meet certain criteria - Shechitah requires the right person, the right animal and the proper action. The Mishneh Chullin 72b asks a Q we would never ask, in fact it takes a very long time to actually read and make sense of the Mishneh, so counter intuitive is its premise. Why is it that a horse is a Neveilah even if it is Shechted whereas a cow which is Shechted is not a Neveilah in spite of it being a Tereifa? In our mind, the non-Kosher status of a Tereifa is a consequence of its ritual blemish which in no way affects the Shechitah; of course the Shechitah should prevent the animal becoming a Neveilah. But that is not how the Mishneh sees things - the Mishneh understands that the Tereifa status of the cow invalidates the Shechitah - it is, in the Mishneh's mind, equivalent to Shechting a horse. The Mishneh answers that Yesh BeMino Shechitah - meaning, although the animal itself ought to be deemed not Shechted, nevertheless as a species it has an association with Shechitah so the Shechitah will, in spite of being imperfect, prevent it becoming a Neveilah. And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. R Micha already noted that this touches upon the [in]famous bar-mitzvah Pshettel of R Chaim. But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The Gemara [Chullin 113] requires a special Ribbuy to teach that there is an Issur to cook premature born cow with milk Gedi LeRabbos Es HaShellil. Why? Why might we think it is not like a regular cow? The Tiferes YaAkov explains that such an animal has no Issur Cheilev, Chullin 75a, which is unsurprising considering that it is not a BeHeimah, so we may well have argued there is no Issur BBCh; KMLan that it is deemed to be Bassar for the Issur of BBCh. Now think about this - a Jew may not cook nor eat BBCh If a Yid however is about to eat Cheilev, which he may not cook with milk since it is deemed to be Bassar, we cannot warn him that he is transgressing the Issur of eating BBCh. Why? Because Ein Issur Chal Al Issur - once the Issur of Cheilev is already in place the later Issur of BBCh cannot take hold. Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Which seems to indicate that although it is a Neveilah, there is no Issur to eat a prematurely born cow. [To be sure we would need to verify that it has not entered its ninth month.] Hence my Q - Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:23:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, > let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps "minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes? > Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read > at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is that we're supposed to be doing? In a later post, he wrote: > It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's > takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that > one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias > hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this > from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it > must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a > missed haftara. I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read. Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:31:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> On 7/19/2017 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay > when the haftarah is read improperly? I don't think the question works. Consider: we have a chiyuv to daven shmoneh esrei. But there are different girsaot, so clearly, exact wording isn't critical to fulfilling the requirement. So we already see that there are different levels of chiyuvim, and that we are more medayek on exact wording on some levels than others. Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to something like haftara than there is for Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719101803.GA11560@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos :> on the other side? : Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it : on the right side of the one who enters." : And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And : there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Besheim the Mordechai. The Shakh) says this is true even if the lefty lives alone or the whole family is lefty. Because mezuzah is a chiyuv on the house, not like tefillin's chiyuv, which is on the guf. The Be'eir Heiteiv quotes the Shakh, adding "vekhein nohagim". The AhS (s' 5) gives multiple reasons: 1- A house is made for anyone who lives there, not this specific person. Which might be the same explanation, might not. Seems related to the fact that we do not take mezuzos down when the next owner is Jewish. 2- He contrasts to tefillin, where the pasuq uses the word "yadkha" and we darshen "yad keihah", whereas "beisekha" is used to darshen the din that it's direction from which one enters. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 05:46:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84213f099d8841fb92a75e4a8d758038@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 04:27:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's > surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" > when it comes to something like haftara than there is for > Torah. We seem to agree that it *IS* possible to read the haftarah IMproperly, in contrast to R' Zev Sero, who wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be > read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't > be invalid. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 06:52:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> On 18/07/17 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas > chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, But that is key. What is a chiyuv, or rather in Hebrew a chovah? As anyone who's read an Ivrit bank statement or balance sheet can tell you, it's a liability. "Lotzeis y'dei chovah", or "being yotzei", means discharging that liability. If there is no chovah then there is nothing from which to exit; one cannot speak of being yotzei something that is not a chiyuv. Now krias hatorah is not a chovah on any individual. If one missed leining one shabbos one needn't make it up. Even if there are 10 men who missed it, and therefore could make it up if they wanted to, they don't. But it is a chovah on the tzibbur; if for some reason an entire community was unable to read the Torah one week they must make it up the next week by reading two sedros. If they don't then their liability has not been discharged. When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". Of course if it is to be read it should be read correctly. *Anything* that is read should be read correctly; there is no virtue in reading carelessly, as if one's words are of no importance so it doesn't matter if one butchers them. But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, and since not reading it leaves no undischarged liability on the community therefore a bad reading doesn't do so either. > Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim > correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is > that we're supposed to be doing? Suppose my argument is incorrect, and there *is* some obligation which the community must discharge? How long a reading counts? We know that the gemara's mention of 21 pesukim is merely a recommendation, since we routinely disregard it. So how small *can* we make it? By analogy with krias hatorah we can say that fewer than three pesukim is not a reading at all. But maybe the analogy is inapt, and the takana is fulfilled by *any* reading from the nevi'im, even just one pasuk, or perhaps even a single phrase. After all the whole takanah is simply in memory of the time when krias hatorah was banned, so we read nevi'im instead; so perhaps even a very small reading is enough to evoke this memory. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, >>> This illustrates why I suggested avoiding words like "chiyuv". Is our goal to be in a status of "no worse than not having read it at all"? Surely not! If we would be satisfied with such, then why do we bother reading it? Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I don't understand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:36:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: <51a89e09-5077-e733-156f-9027c6f70dc9@sero.name> On 19/07/17 13:20, Akiva Miller wrote: > > Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting > someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or > whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems > to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I > don't understand. I'm saying that it's not *required*, and therefore it becomes a highly situational question of balancing the reader's sensitivity and the tircha detzibura against a desire to hear a haftara that doesn't grate on the nerves. There's no "I'm sorry but if we don't correct him we won't be yotzei". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 12:43:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719194312.GA13614@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. : I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of : him that is generally accepted as accurate? Mequbalim in Itali had a mesorah from the Rama miFano (late 16th - early 17th cent) that beards were only appropriate in EY. The Ramchal's lack of beard was mentioned in the charges against him when he was drummed out of Italy for teaching a very messianic Qabbalah too soon after Shabbeta Zvi. Someone once showed me a Chasam Sofer and a Chidah which refer to this practice. But I couldn't find it. Meanwhile, I found Gilyon Maharshah (R' Shelomo Eiger), at the end of YD 181, says that kamah gedolei hamequbalim, talmidei haAri, who cut their beards with scissors. So, scissors is no my default assumption, which means they probably had some visible stuble, if not enough to qualify as a "beard". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 02:09:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> References: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> Message-ID: <19840673-e64a-c7e5-41b9-92f64dd10daf@zahav.net.il> Ikkar ha-din, someone who can't properly enunciate Hebrew letters isn't allowed to pray from the amud, never mind read the Torah or Haftorah. I don't know if there is a need to correct someone who consistently makes mistakes but there is certainly no reason to allow him to read at all if he can't do it properly. As an aside: one of my rabbis said that RYBS didn't correct someone in class who made mistakes reading the Gemara text but if someone made a mistake with a pasuk in the Gemara, then the Rav let him have it. Ben On 7/19/2017 12:31 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot > more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to > something like haftara than there is for Torah. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:11:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then > I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant. I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe "tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also. Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors, including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria Message-ID: RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing about the nature of the original obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 24 11:53:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah Message-ID: <20170724185345.GA20358@aishdas.org> In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61) discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads "leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving her a real gett. The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because "almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other misspellings that have only one possible intent. I was wondering if this is too fanciful: Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah" could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often given given in CE. Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could cross the readers mind. Maybe? Or too creative? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 06:47:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 12:40:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 08:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721@aishdas.org> One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 09:50:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:36:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:34:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:31:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:13:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 12:10:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:21:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:49:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> References: <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 23:38:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and historical. He brings parts of the midrashim about Avraham Avinu's early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for any other reason than to understand the historical facts. Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 26 July 2017 08:49 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Washing Clothes During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 2. The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 3. Menorah on Arch of Titus (Micha Berger via Avodah) 4. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 5. Showering During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 6. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 7. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 8. Re: alma vs. almah (elazar teitz via Avodah) 9. Re: alma vs. almah (Micha Berger via Avodah) 10. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 11. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/494286688/Ohr-Somayach-Logo-150sq_bigger.jpg] Showering During the Nine Days?! by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz tinyurl.com YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger , avodah The General Discussion Area for Avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"; format="flowed" On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , llevine at stevens.edu, Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 From: elazar teitz via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: elazar teitz , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:13:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? Message-ID: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:14:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: From "Religion Within Reason" by Steven Cahn: "To have faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . To describe someone as a person of faith suggests that the individual is strong-willed, fearless, and unwavering." Question to all - what percentage of the frum world have no doubts? How many don't think about it at all? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 05:11:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering during the Nine days In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: see: Is it permissible to shower during the Nine Days? http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/is-it-permissible-to-shower-during-nine.html [or -mi] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:09:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? I am in the middle of R' Mordechai Torczyner's (CC-ed, please include him in replies) shiurim on ribis. http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&category=0,234696 In particular, shiurim no.s 3-5 are about refunds. It's under 2 hrs total, and if you know something of the sugya, 1.25x speed is doable. The first lines of the source sheet to those shiurim is "Lamah yeish chiyuv lehachzir ribis?" http://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=529082 If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:17:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih but not a tikkun for the lav) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 19:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Torczyner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim >> was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. >> If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would >> be subject to maaser kesafim. ... > Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is > something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih > but not a tikkun for the lav) > KT Hi R' Joel, Indeed, the Ritva's view is that ribbis, once paid, belongs to the creditor. The creditor is obligated to pay it back, but the money is his for purposes including Kiddushin. Other applications include whether the borrower has the power to forgive the repayment, and whether the creditor's heirs have a duty to repay. Kol tuv, Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 10:19:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:19:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c1d64f4e4564ec7b59a1d187400d9bd@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." ============================== I'd appreciate specific examples ============================== Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== I finally tracked down a copy of the book and read through it-I?d simply say that one must underline heavily the statement ?the best of what was known to them in their time? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:09:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> I read Rachel Levmore's "Decentralizing Religious Authority" at Teaser: Overview Orthodox Jewish life used to be a simpler matter for those who wanted to lead one. There was an unspoken system in place. One could approach the local rabbi with a question. If he didn't know, scholars higher up in the "hierarchy" could weigh in until the question reached the "gadol hador." Despite the plurality of approaches which always existed, there was a definitive address whose opinion would be accepted by all (or almost all). Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone. The present circumstances, which have witnessed a breakdown of authority in general society coupled with the absence of an uncontested authoritative Torah scholar, has led to absurd situations. Lacking agreed-upon "gedolim" today, a void exists... Without any proper halakhic discourse between various rabbis who deem themselves to be leaders (even if they lack followers)... And so on, with a pretty sociological take on the problem, and how it applies to controversy over the halachic prenup. As is usual for me, I'm intrigued by the theoretical meta-issue. Given that we've entered an era that there is a dirth of gedolim whose rulings are followed across multiple communities and eidot, is there a significant change to how halakhah is done? And I'm not saying this is entirely about nisqatnu hadoros, and how today's gedolim aren't like those of my youth. Some of it is also the effects of universal education, google, social-media cynicism and echo chamber, and the social trends that cause the popularity of such social media, and other societal changes that made people less likely to respect authority that isn't fully in agreement with what they decided the truth should be. Returning to snipping from the article: The Internet is not the forum for halakhic rows. Rabbinic tradition prescribes that halakhic disputes be conducted in depth, not superficially through "virtual" statements in cyberspace. Proper procedure dictates that rabbinic forums be held where differences of opinions can be [19]discussed face to face. If that is not possible, then [20]scholarly books are written or [21]rabbinic articles published. Alarmist attempts to create fear among innocent lay-people cannot be considered credible halakhic writing. And: [I]t is not for naught that the Mishnah directs us to choose who is our rabbi: [24]aseh lekha rav. It is your responsibility as a God-fearing Jew to determine which rabbi you will follow, according to your perception of his righteousness, scholarship, and derekh--philosophy of Jewish life. For a variety of reasons, it should be a rabbi who lives in the same community as you, not least since he would then be familiar with the challenges and facts of your life. In the United States, the Rabbinical Council of America has assembled an impressive body of rabbinic figures... Visible links ... 19. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-plea-from-Jerusalem-to-the-worlds-Orthodox-rabbis-483210 20. https://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%94.html?id=FpsqQwAACAAJ 24. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en My first stab at answering my own question is to wonder how long halakhah has been centralized around a few globally known gedolim. >From the geonim until the late 19th century, were there any? And even when there was a few posqim the whole world turned to (eg the geonim), how many question did they go to the gedolim for? Wouldn't the size of the world back then mean that most questions were far more local, with the mara de'asra having much more of a final say, with consensus being more of a regional thing? If halachic authority is being decentralized, is that something new, or a reversion to the norm, to how non-Sanhedrin (or as the Rambam would have it, post-talmudic) halakhah supposed to work? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:19:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:32:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170728203214.GA6178@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:38:18AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and : historical... But not the fantastical ones. Zev and I are arguing over two things: 1- What that includes. Zev believes that the inclusion of miracles does not make a medrash fantastical. And in fact to believe so be apiqursus. (Actually, Zev said the believer would be an apiqoreis; but the question whether every believer in apiqursus is necessarily an apiqoreis is far afield. So I'll still to this less controversial subset of his claim.) I disagree. The Rambam associates nissim with nevu'ah. Someone who lacks the yedi'ah to get one isn't going to be around to witness the other. Therefore, aggadic stories of miracles placed after Tanakh are fantastical. While Hashem could still in principle perform nissim, the Rambam believes He wouldn't. (Even when the story is told of a member of chazal and their level of ruach haqodesh.) 2- Is there a default? Zev understands that the default is to take a medrash historically, unless it must be ruled out. Again, I disagree. Medrashim are described as metaphors and riddles. The story and its historical content just isn't an issue. You can't assume anything about a medrash being historical or ahistorical qua medrash. A good bit of history and a good tall tale can be used equally well for teaching by metaphor. Implying, you would need outside reason to assume one or the other. Which is how the Rambam then says that if the story doesn't fit how the world works physically, metaphysicall or theologically -- ie what that translation I googled up called "fantastic" -- insisting its historical when it can't be is silly. So: : Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are : other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could : attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Be happy, no one in this conversation does. In my understanding of Zev's view, the Rambam says that any medrash that isn't impossible (and nissim are possible) should be assumed to be historical. In my view, wondering about the historicity of the story misses the whole point of medrash. But if the story does not fit the way Hashem runs the universe -- which according to the Rambam would include miracle stories happening after Malakhi, and many of the stories before -- assume it is ahistorical. : early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at : the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for : any other reason than to understand the historical facts. The Rambam there has outside reason to believe that medrashic description; it fit what the Nabatean Agriculture implied abot the birth of their religion. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:00:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 05:00:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: True, especially in the MO/DL world. The site had an article a few months ago about how the MO/DL simply aren't looking for gedolim or they define the role of a gadol in way that strips him of much of this supposed authority. Ben On 7/28/2017 10:19 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 14:51:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From ?Religion Within Reason? by Steven Cahn: ?To have > faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes > beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . It depends on what he means by "putting aside" one's doubts. If "putting aside" means that one does have doubts, but denies this fact, and acts as if his faith was complete, this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and in general, A Bad Thing. It is comparable to one who feigns humility; the odds of an eventual implosion are too high. Rather, one must be honest about his doubts or questions, and work on resolving them. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:12:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Math behind kulan chayav Message-ID: <20170730031250.GA2671@aishdas.org> "Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince." Lachlan J. Gunn, et al. Proceedings of The Royal Society A. To be published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00900 Magazine article on said paper (H/T R/Dr Josh Backon): https://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html This paper focuses on the case of identifying a criminal in a police line-up, archeological evidence, and crypography testing, but I'll just use the first as an example. Sometimes a line-up is like picking out an apple out of a group of bananas. But usually, there is measurable probability of error. Whether it's 48% for a criminal who runs through the crime scene or the probability of mistaking one's kidnapper, there is always some probability of error. Now, what's the probability that no one makes that error? If 10 people unanimously identify the same person, is it more likely that no one made the rror, or that there is a systemic bias leading people to select the same member of the line-up? This paper shows the math (and has plots for various probabilities of error). It takes far fewer people than you'd think before a unanimous finding becomes suspicious. And the paper even cites the din as precedent: However, this is not necessarily the case and more confirmations can surprisingly disimprove our confidence that the defendant has been correctly identified as the perpetrator. This type of possibility was recognised intuitively in ancient times. Under ancient Jewish law [13], one could not be unanimously convicted of a capital crime -- it was held that the absence of even one dissenting opinion among the judges indicated that there must remain some form of undiscovered exculpatory evidence. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 07:48:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20). I am attending a Bris on Tisha B'Av. May I say "Mazal Tov" to the baby's father? If I meet a sick person on Tisha B'Av, may I wish him a "Refuah Shleimah" (a full recovery)? Are these also prohibited forms of greeting? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l rules that Mazal Tov for a recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B'Av since it is considered a blessing and not a greeting (Dirshu M.B. Beiurim and Musofim 554:63 citing Halichos Shlomo Bein HaMitzorim Vol. 15 Orchos Halacha 30). However, if at all possible, one should wait for a different day to express this Mazal Tov (Chut Sheini Vol. 2 p. 327). Our minhag is to perform a Bris on Tisha B'Av after the Kinos are completed, even if it is before Chatzos (mid-day), because of Zerizim makdimim l'Mitzvos, those who serve Hashem with alacrity, do mitzvos as quickly as possible (Mechaber, Rama 559:7 and Mishna Berurah ibid s.k. 26). Rav Shlomo Zalman was of the opinion that one can certainly say "Mazal Tov" at the Bris even before Chatzos (ibid). Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l however rules that the Mazal Tov for the Bris should only be said after Chatzos (Dirshu M.B. ibid citing Shmaitza D'Moshe p. 431). Although "Sholom Aleichim" should not be said to an Avel (one who is in mourning), the Gesher HaChaim (21:67:7) permits wishing "Refuah Shleima" to an Avel who is ill, since this is considered a blessing and not a greeting. For the same reason it is permitted on Tisha B'Av to wish a "Refuah Shleima" to a person who is ill (Dirshu M.B. ibid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 10:24:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:48pm GMT, Professor L. Levine quoted today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis: : Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" : "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend : is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20)... I'm going to use this to share the quick thought in my most recent blog post: The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. Tzom qal! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 11:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 31/07/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say > "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the > table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time that day is a fast rather than a yomtov. Though we still hold out hope that that was last year. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time : that day is a fast rather than a yomtov... That was obviously my intent. HOWEVER... We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent ge'ulah. So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust. After all, a commemoration of the ge'ulah after Galus Edom would be far more compelling. (I mentioned this to someone after Maariv, and he suggested that since neither July or August line up with our months that well, maybe it'll be Tish'ah beLeo. I don't think it has the same commemorative quality.) -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 03:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Menuchah Schwat via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. > So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it > Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust... Tisha baChamishi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 06:27:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 8/1/2017 6:01 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used to be a day of mourning?" Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 08:40:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:27:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: :> We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent :> ge'ulah. ... : Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which : is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha : B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used : to be a day of mourning?" What's that "um" about? The month names being Babylonian is a given sitting behind the sentence you quote. It's an often referred to Y-mi, RH 1:2 (vilna 6a) "De'amar R' Chanina: shemos chadashim alu beyadam miBavel." Then going on to mention some pre-Bavli month names found in Tanakh - Risanim, Bul, Ziv, showing how that all changes in Nechemia and Esther. Sure, when talking about 9 beAv the fast, we may well teach them we called it 9 beAv. But, as I suggested in the OP, maybe after the ge'ulah from Galus Edom, we'll do the same with the Julian / Gregorian month names. It will, after all, be a much more momentus ge'ulah, being final and lasting. If Anshei Keneses haGedolah thought it was appropriate to commemorate one ge'ulah in this manner, perhaps we should assume al achas kamah vekamah the end of our current galus would be commemorated similarly. On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:01:50PM +0300, Menuchah Schwat wrote: : Tisha baChamishi That's ambiguous. The chumash uses "bachodesh" to be clearer about which is the day count, and which is the month. Even if the month number is a cardinal ("-i" - fifTH) and the day is an ordinal (no suffix) the way you wrote them. You don't explain *why* you think we'd go back to the biblical system, rather than commemorating the ge'ulah from Galus Edom. After all, even the nevi'im didn't stick to the original numbered months. And I think my suggested parallel makes /some/ sense, if not necessarily what the Sanhedrin will end up deciding. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kinos: Hashem as Spaceman? In-Reply-To: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In Kinah #7 (Aholi Asher Ta'avta), the Kalir wrote "v'nihyeita ketas bechalal". To our ears this evokes images of loneliness and isolation, of someone surrounded by vacuum, light-years from anywhere and anyone, but what did "chalal" even mean to people with a Ptolemaic model (if that) of the universe? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:34:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 14:34:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av Message-ID: I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana ---------------------- I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it even is one), I think you are doing OK! -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 15:04:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <187d2f.769a1cbd.46b254d0@aol.com> From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah " >> There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. << Kol tuv, Ilana >>>>>> What you did instinctively was the right thing to do. Here is what Eliyahu Kitov says in _The Book of Our Heritage_: --quote-- It is prohibited to greet one's friend or acquaintance on Tisha B'Av, and it is even prohibited to say "Good morning." If, however, one is greeted, he should answer in a low tone, in order not to arouse resentment." --end quote-- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 21:51:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:51:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed Message-ID: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand that not everyone agrees with this position). Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can determine where the issur actually is? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 23:57:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB, quoting Rachel Levmore: > Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox > Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. > Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, > Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef were still alive and active. And if someone writes a similar article in another few decades, perhaps some of today's great poskim will have been added posthumously to the list... Not to be cynical, but could it be that one of the factors that makes a gadol universally recognized and accepted across Orthodoxy is that he is no longer among the living? Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 04:18:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:18:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed In-Reply-To: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> References: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 02/08/17 00:51, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har > Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess > information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can > certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand > that not everyone agrees with this position). > > Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur > karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can > determine where the issur actually is? *Any* case where we got new information. Take the classic case of two pieces of fat, one shuman and one chelev, but one doesn't know which is which, and then one later finds out. Before finding out both were assur; if one ate one of them beshogeg one brings an asham and the other piece remains assur. Once the new information is acquired the shuman becomes permitted, and if it transpired that one ate the chelev one must now bring a chatas. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 05:07:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from the OU: > The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra > Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as > greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" > (Mechaber 554:20). ... ... > > Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l rules that Mazal Tov for a > recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B?Av since it is > considered a blessing and not a greeting. ... ... I honestly don't understand the distinction that causes a "greeting" to be assur, while allowing a "blessing" to be mutar. I would think that "good morning" is a blessing. Aren't we praying that the other person's morning will be a good one? Perhaps the distinction is in the degree of kavana with which the "good morning" is given and received. After all, if it were said as a blessing, and received as one, then wouldn't we respond to the "good morning" with something like "amen"? Perhaps we can prove "good morning" to be a mere greeting, by pointing out that the response is usually a perfunctory repeat of the words "good morning", rather than anything serious. In this light, I confidently suggest that "How are you?" is definitely a greeting, because usually no one expects a response other than "okay" or "fine". What of the Mechaber's halacha of "Shalom Aleichem"? Surely we would agree that "Shalom Aleichem" is a blessing, no? After all, the response to "Shalom Aleichem" is "Aleichem Shalom", and I suspect (YMMV) that this is usually sincere rather than perfunctory. This brings us to the very core of this halacha: RSZA is drawing a line between greeting and blessing, and his halacha about Mazel Tov makes no sense (to me) unless "Shalom Aleichem" is defined as the prototypical *greeting*, and *not* a blessing. I can't imagine why this would be so, unless the Mechaber already felt that "Shalom Aleichem" was usually said perfunctorially. And that's sad. Can anyone offer a different analysis of these various phrases? Finally, it seems to me that "perfunctory" is a good summary of why we can bring American money into a bathroom, despite the words "In God We Trust" being on them: Those words have become a mere perfunctory slogan, and are no longer a real statement of faith. But if we have downgraded "Shalom Aleichem" from blessing to greeting with that same logic, then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? Do any other poskim make this distinction (either in Hilchos Tish'a B'av, or in Hilchos Aveilus, or for that matter in Hilchos What Not To Do Before Shacharis) between a greeting and a blessing? I'd love to see it defined more clearly. (There was a point in my life when if I'd sneeze and someone would say "God bless you", my response was "Amen". But I stopped that fairly quickly as people tended to find my response quite jarring. Maybe "God bless you" is also in the category of a perfunctory greeting that should not be done on Tish'a B'av?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 06:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170802132730.GB27820@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:57:08AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack : of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef : were still alive and active... In the US, recognition of R' Henkin and RMF were near-universal. And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. In Israel, I think the most recent candidates are pre-Shas ROY and RSZA. Although ROY's pesaqim are distinctly Sepharadi, I think it's commonly accepted that Yabia Omer is one of the few sefarim written in my lifetime people will be learning centuries from now. My mention of pre-Shas points to something I think is one of the causes. The search for "daas Torah" on political and societal matters makes enemies and cynics from among those who disagree. As for RSZA, RALichtenstein notes that he posessed a gedulah different in kind, not just degree [inevitable nisqatnu hadoros], than those we've looked up to since. I highly recommend "Im Da'at Ein, Manhigut Minayin?" . In it RAL defends da'as Torah as a doctrine, but questions if anyone since RSZA has been qualified to have it. To quote my own pitgam from past posts: A gadol is tall enough to see over our fences. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 09:05:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Eleazar Hakalir Message-ID: Yesterday during the fast, I was reading about R. Eleazar Hakalir, and was struck by the fact that historians aren't sure when he lived, with some saying he lived during Mishnaic times and others saying he lived as late as the 11th century. I realize that pinpointing dates during this time period is difficult, but a 900 year swing seems very unusual. Is anyone familiar with any recent papers or articles that attempts to zero in on the real date when this poet lived? Any additional info appreciated. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 18:25:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170803012513.GC16841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: :> I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, :> but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk :> hurting his feelings. : I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it : even is one), I think you are doing OK! I am wondering whether cheerfully (rather than pro-forma, yotzei-zain, replying so as not to offend) greeting someone in this situation despite 9 beAv is an instance of huterah or dekhuyah. (Thus overanalyzing your parenthetic remark.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 4 13:52:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: ?A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha *minyanim* questioned my saying "*y'yasheir kochacha*" to one of the *olim* (FWIW, I was the *bal qorei*) and, a few min.s later, brought to the *bimah* an Artscroll-*dinim* paragraph (from the back of its 9Av *siddur*) about not greeting someone; my response, as you might guess, was that "*y'yasheir* /*yeeshar kochacha*" was not a greeting. A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "*Shalom aleichem*", like M'gilas Rus' "*H' imachem* // *y'varechcha H'*", is also a blessing, but the "problem"? comes up when it's utilized as a greeting. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 5 23:33:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:33:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and fish blood? we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking liquid and almond milk? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within > their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 04:29:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <221F9E1E-C833-4DA1-83A2-577056D221BF@cox.net> R? Akiva wrote: ?.then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? I would say the reason is that Shalom is one of God?s Names. There was once a study done on people?s responses to ?How are you?? The respondent was supposed to answer in the negative. So instead of saying ?fine, thank you,? the response would be either ?terrible,? ?awful,? ?not good,? etc. and guess what? Something like 90% would not even have realized the negative response. In other words, it is very perfunctory when someone greets someone else in a normal setting. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 09:55:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table > and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher > but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. > What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and > fish blood? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? > we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table > at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond > milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking > liquid and almond milk? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring white milk looking liquid to the meaty dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? I suspect that in both cases, you are noting the explicit prohibition against doing these things and then you are presuming that these prohibitions apply *only* to these specific foods. Then, having made that presumption, you are asking why this distinction exists. I suggest that this is an improper procedure. It would be more correct to note the prohibition about these specific things, and then to *ASK* whether the prohibition also applies to similar things. You might find that the prohibition *does* extend to other things: Example #2: Soy milk. When pareve coffee creamers first became easily available, they were all soy-based. Yet the hashgachos warned us to serve it only in the original container, precisely because of the halacha you cite. Example #1: Suppose you have a lightly-cooked steak in your plate. Some "red blood looking liquid" is leaking out of the meat onto the plate, and is absorbed into the mashed potatoes. There's no issur against those potatoes. I'm pretty sure you can even mix it up into the potatoes deliberately, or dip your bread into it and eat it. But can you pour it out of the plate, into a glass and *drink* it? I don't know. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 13:44:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Lecture from Herzog Yemei Iyun Message-ID: <25bb89bf-b093-17da-6af7-7c80276a5d1a@zahav.net.il> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXeFDdchKY One of the lectures at this year's Yemei Iyun at Herzog: Rav Bazaq (Har Etzion) and Rav Kashtiel (Yeshivat Eli) explain a story in Nach (Isha HaShunamite) each in his way. In doing so, they try to demonstrate the differences in approach between what is called "Tanach b'Gova Einayim" and "HaKav". According to a story that I read about this lecture, this was the first time, after years and years of fighting (sometimes extremely fierce fighting) between proponents of each approach, that two people got together and gave a lesson together. There have been conferences where each side explains why their approach is good and the other side is wrong, but this is the first time that two people taught together. The lectures are in conversational Hebrew. Besides the demonstration of the different approaches, the lectures themselves about the story are fantastic. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 22:20:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:20:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom haAtzamut. Ben On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Micha Berger wrote: > >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. > > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? > > Akiva Miller \ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 07:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> References: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170807140514.GC15062@aishdas.org> : On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > R' Micha Berger wrote: : >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within : >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. : > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom : haAtzamut. I knew he was capable of it because I know several such stories. In the future, try to remember everything I wrote over all of Avodah's 19 years' history. It would save me time. I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning something that non-intuitive. Including when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 18:45:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:45:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with > the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning > something that non-intuitive. I was trying to come up with a snappy comeback, but the truth is that I simply have a rotten memory. Or, perhaps, the non-intuitive stuff is lost more easily, precisely because the anti-intuitiveness makes it more difficult for the brain to reconstruct the chain of links. We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. > when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. > RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if > it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." I wish I had been aware of these shades of gray when I was younger. Thank you for sharing. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 07:29:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:54PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is : how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is : the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult : to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical reasons given: 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish model.) 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the community. (The usual Chassidish model.) 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from DT in general when he left Agudah.) #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and not necessarily personal ones. Here we're talking about halakhah. So, I'd like to see if we can discuss the flipside of the discussion. Rather than asking about the heteronomy of following gedolei haposqim and why today's posqim seem to be failing getting that kind of fealty from certain large segments of the masses, what about the autonomy end? We have a very literate masses. More people can hit the primary sources themselves. And for those who can't, oir lack the patience to, there are more secondary and tertiary sources available in laaz than ever before. Joys of computerized publishing, which has made producing a book cheaper than ever. In this world, how much autonomy should a sho'el assume for himself? Which questions don't need asking? I presume a wide variety of opinion; I am more interested in various rationales than in any particular answer. What about the LOR -- do you have thoughts about when he should field the question, and when he should punt to his own rav or to a gadol? And does the ease at which anyone can be reached anywhere on the globe matter? Universal education, telecom, the web's ability to provide instand "research" are all bottom-up reasons our authority is being decentralized. With little to do on those elegable to assume that authority vs those of the past. Although the ease of LH and motzi sheim ra about those rabbanim with today's tech does enter into it to, r"l. If no one can become a navi in his childhood neighborhood, today's world makes it harder and harder to leave that effect. My own feeling is that anyone of East European ancestry who was not higi'ah lehora'ah who faces a new (for them) situation and doesn't get a sense of consensus from the Chayei Adam, Qitzur, MB and AhS should be asking a she'eilah. Notice that shows my own bias against popularist guides. Unless said guide was written by or recommended by one's poseiq as a viable resource. And in terms of autonomy vs heteronomy, I would be seeking a poseiq who (1) convinces me of the soundness of his reasoning; and (2) is willing to work with my givens on things like hashkafah and beliefs about metzi'us, where there are no rules of pesaq. As in RMF's pesaq about Hallel on YhA. (Tangent: Notice that there is little connection between pesaq and hashkafah on this one. RYBS, the Zionist, adhered to a meta-halakhah in which the barriers to saying Hallel are high, and came out against. As a compromise for LORs whose mispallelim won't tolerate that, he would advise the rav to pasqen that they omit the berakhah. Whereas RMF told Zionists that leshitasam, it would be appropriate to say Hellal WITH a berakhah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 08:45:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Kashrus of Braekel Message-ID: <20170808154508.GA12433@aishdas.org> They're now importing to EY from Europe a new breed of chicken, the braekel. See http://www.baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=37&ARTICLE_ID=90778 ... Members of the Eida Charedis' Vaad Shechita, prominent rabbonim and kashrus experts gathered in the home of Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita to determine if a new chicken, imported from Europe, has a kosher status. The discussion lasted for four hours! The new bird is called Braekel, and according to HaGaon HaRav Sternbuch, the bird is not kosher. However, in Bnei Brak, HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita has ruled it is kosher. The chicken was raised in Europe in an area void of Jews and Rav Sternbuch feels it lacks the `mesora' required. Wikipedia reports that it is indeed Gallus gallus domesticus, actual chicken in scientific taxonomy. And The Brakel is not cultivated for its meat, but merely for its egg-laying qualities. The breed is capable of producing 180 to 200 white eggs a year. This isn't remotely like the leghorn, a breed of chicken that has 2 "thumbs" and 2 other toes per claw, rather than the usual for kosher birds -- 1 "thumb" and 3. And it's accepted as kosher, in fact, the source of most of our eggs here in the states. But the breakel has normal simanim. For that matter, according to some pesaqim about why we can eat turkey (the context in which the kashrus of leghorn chickens most often comes up) we even accept Meleagris gallopavo, turkey, as being within the mesorah for chickens and they aren't even in the same genus! Third wiki-note, commenting on the two subtypes of braekel chicken that have since interbread into one: In the UK, USA and Australia, however, one can still find descendants of the Kempische Brakel under its old name 'Campine'. The Campine has evolved differently from the Brakel. The most noticeable difference is the hen-feathering of the rooster and the lower weight. We in the US are treating a bird that evolved (nishtanah hateva, if you prefer) from the breakel as kosher; no one requires checking if an egg is campine or not. It's not even like the mesorah has been silent; even if each breed of G. gallus domesticus needs it's own mesorah. So, lo zakhisi lehavin RMS's reluctance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 09:27:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> References: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <69647634-1f0b-8686-3b9b-f1fe2958ab37@sero.name> On 08/08/17 10:29, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning > to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical > reasons given: > > 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and > ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish > model.) > > 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the > community. (The usual Chassidish model.) > > 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would > ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to > Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the > current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and > doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, > and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from > DT in general when he left Agudah.) > > #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and > not necessarily personal ones. #4 All true knowledge is in the Torah, and finding it is a matter of making non-obvious connections. Therefore someone who has absorbed enough of it to do so can find the correct answer to anything, though he may not be able to explain how he did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 12:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hebrew manuscripts Message-ID: A database of ancient Hebrew manuscripts is now available at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLIS/en/ManuScript/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 18:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel Message-ID: . This past October (in Avodah 34:130) I mentioned a practice that I've seen growing in recent years, that of making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. I was learning about the issur of eating a large seudah on Erev Shabbos, and I came across something that seems very relevant to that practice. Form the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod Hashabbos" writes: "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 21:21:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:21:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142a02db-9198-65c3-9f5d-1b882fc5f525@sero.name> On 08/08/17 21:24, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of > appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, > making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." However, "to`ameha chayim zachu". Tasting a little of the Shabbos dishes, as opposed to gorging oneself on them, is very much kevod Shabbos, to increase the anticipation, like a sneak preview. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 11:58:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the : reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with : which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod : Hashabbos" writes: : "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of : appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, : making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." These motives have a nadka mina. If one fills up Fri afternoon on food they don't enjoy (perhaps it's healthful) or wouldn't eat in a formal or celebratory setting, one is running afoul of the SA's sevara, but not the PM's. In contrast, having significant amounts of Shabbos-appropriate food but not to the point of ruining one's appetite by the time maariv is over would be a problem according to the PM, but not the SA's sevara. Zev mentioned the case of tasting Shabbos food. The MB 250:2 uses the word "lit'om". The Machzor Vitri cites a lost Y-mi and invokes "to'ameha chaim zakhu" -- I think it's specifically te'imah. As in, less than a kezayis, no berakhah, not really eating. (Which is why I wrote last paragraph about "significant amounts".) It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. BUT.... The whole point of chulent is to have hot food in Shabbos lunch, to fulfill the obligation (SA OC 271:3) of making it the more special meal. (Rather than Fri night dinner. See Shaarei Teshuvah #1.) The AhS says one is not obligated to abstain from special Shabbos-lunch foods Fri night. But I'm talking about Thu night, altogether before Shabbos. O Seems to me that until someone finds a new "special Shabbos lunch food", Thu night chulent ought to be prohibited! Whereas one SHOULD just taste the chulent on Fri, and it is permitted (but sub-optimal) to have some with Fri night dinner. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 22:14:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:14:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Not just yeshiva guys. It has become a minor trendy thing for all sort of people to travel to Bnei Braq to get chulent. On 8/9/2017 8:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". > My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and > Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment > near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 04:43:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (=?utf-8?B?157XoNeV15fXlCDXqdeR15g=?= via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: The Mishna Brura clearly states that the reason for tasting on erev shabbat is "kedei letaken". This refers to tasting during the cooking process and does not fit with the whole kugel minhag. Menucha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 11:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] publishing trends Message-ID: I'd love to hear any analysis (or guesses) as to what are the percentages of different types of sefarim (both Hebrew and English) being published in the current era, how they differ from those in the past and, most interestingly to me, what are the drivers for these trends? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 15:37:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:37:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Milk, Blood and look alikes Message-ID: I fear that the Halachic posture of *Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to?* although making sense from a narrow perspective, actually invites Halachic disaster, and is quite incorrect. Halacha asserts all is permitted unless it is prohibited. Here is an example in which the Shach seems to assert that Maris Ayin is limited to its narrow description and is not to be expanded according to what makes sense to us. BP, those that have been found within a Shechted cow, require Shechita once they have walked about. Before they have walked about they do not require Shechita. However, Ben PeKuAh can also be created via natural breeding which goes on forever. So we can have a large herd of BP none of which are identifiable as BP. The Mechaber Paskens without qualifying, *until they have walked about* - that the naturally born BP all require Shechita. This would appear to suggest that they require Shechita even before they have walked about. And there is good reason to understand this to be the Halacha, after all in this herd there is absolutely no way to identify them as BP whereas those found in a Shechted mother are readily identified as being BP. And I presume that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, the Shach makes it clear that the decree that requires that they be Shechted applies only after they have walked about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 11 07:15:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Summer and Travel Videos Message-ID: <1502460917652.98832@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y8drmxm3 Kosher Summer and Travel Videos As you prepare to fire up the grill for the summer or hit the road on vacation, countless Kashrut issues arise: Can I cook on a public grill in a park? Can I use a hotel room microwave? How should one pray on an airplane? These commonly asked questions and many more will be answered in our 2017 Kosher summer and travel series. Your esteemed guide through this halachic journey? It's none other than Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of OU Kosher. View the questions and answers below! Can you cook on a BBQ that has previously been used for Non-Kosher meat? Can meat and fish be cooked on the same BBQ? Can you eat cut fruit from an uncertified vendor? Can you buy coffee from a non-kosher establishment or a kiosk? May you purchase salad from an uncertified entity when traveling on the road? What products am I permitted to eat from an ice cream store? What are the Halachos in regards to prayer on an airplane? What are the Kashrut issues with airline meals? Can in-room hotel microwaves be used without kashering? Is it permissible to take antihistamines or other medication without certification? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 13 06:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] piskei rid Message-ID: <591d6b28af34484fac75d4f2918958a9@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The bar ilan database notes that its version is from Yad Ha-Rav Herzog. Does anyone have a copy that can see who authored the footnotes? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 02:06:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 07:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken Message-ID: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. See the above URL for more. See also http://tinyurl.com/yckl2bqj YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 08:23:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From > http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h > Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that > he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. Since when is rabbi M any sort if authority in The USA? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 11:28:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:28:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> This whole thing reminds me of the one-a-generation broohaha over leghorn chickens. Leghorns and braekels are chickens, much the way chihuahuas are dogs, despire being rather unique looking dogs -- or chickens. Like other chickens, they are Gallus gallus domesticus. Not even a remote question of problems interbreeding. Every 20 years or so someone notices that the leghorn chicken has two "thumbs" pointing back, and two toes pointing forward, rather than the usual 3-and-1 we expect for kosher birds. And yet, white leghorns make beautifully white eggs, and so it is the breed most American chicken eggs come from. Actually, both it and the braekel chicken do indeed grab the perch in a 2-and-2 grip, once comfortably on it, they go to the 3-and-1 of the rest of the species. And like the leghorn chicken, the braekel chicken is a source of eggs in the US. However, not under the name "braekel". But America's campine chicken, which has the same kind of foot, was breed from the Kempishe Breakel. The question was resolved quite a while ago, which is why we in the US don't have to chase down which breed of chicken an egg came from. So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was raised, we were about to assur, and then it was found that in much of the world zebu was already being eaten as cow. And in fact, MOST tefillin made from gasos are zebu leather! The breakel, which is a normal enough part of the general chicken gene pool to get the usual taxonomical name -- Gallus gallus domesticus. But there are two subspecies of cow: those without a hump between their shoulder are Bos taurus taurus. Those that have such a hump, eg zebu, are Bos taurus indicus. But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can interbreed and produce fertile young, in which case how did any of these questions get started? The mesorah for chickens must therefore include oddballs of the min like leghorn, braekel and campine breeds, and that for cows must include the full min, both subspecies. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 13:42:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <692953b1-38ed-f530-7beb-1656bdc7942d@sero.name> On 14/08/17 14:28, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was > raised, we were about to assur, Very few were about to asser, because the view that a mesorah is needed for mammals is very much a daas yochid. > But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can > interbreed and produce fertile young This is true for mammals, not necessarily for birds. I'd put a different argument: Let's suppose that it *is* a new min, for which no mesorah can exist because it didn't exist until relatively recently. For that very reason we can be 100% certain that it isn't one of the 24 listed species, and therefore doesn't need a mesorah. And if it's *not* a new min then it's a chicken, and once again kosher (except according to Anan ben David y"sh). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 06:36:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:36:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn't this an issue, since they are using less than a revi'is (approximately 3.3 oz. - minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber's question) A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi'is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi'is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi'is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m'lo lugmav (half a revi'is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 14:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170815214945.GA13601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including :> the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha :> follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a :> shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow :> their minhag. Regardless of the shei'ur, so this is perhaps tangential.... The AhS talks about the difficulty in obtaining real wine, the kashrus of "wine" from soaked raisins, and thus the schnapps option. I wonder if so many rabbeim would have insisted on making qiddush on schnapps at all if wine were an affordable option where they lived. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 15:24:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: . R' Ben Waxman asked: > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot > right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the > members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset > on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the > right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine > no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose > money? My first thought is that this is a great example of a question that should be addressed to the rav of the beit knesset. There are so many factors that need to be weighed against each other, such as how badly the shul needs the money, and how many hurt feelings will be created by giving the wrong answer. As regards the comment "a sale is a sale" -- I'm not so sure. Sounds like a "davar shelo ba laolam" to me. Especially since we are considering the real possibility that a kohen guest might show up, rendering the auction questionable. Just my two grush. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 02:54:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Use of Stone Keilim During Bayis Sheini Message-ID: <20170816095450.GA3826@aishdas.org> See http://www.timesofisrael.com/2000-year-old-stone-workshop-discovered-near-where-jesus-turned-water-into-wine or http://j.mp/2v1gxan The Times of Israel By Amanda Borschel-Dan August 10, 2017, 11:51 am 2,000-year-old stone workshop discovered near where Jesus turned water into Only four Second Temple stoneware production centers have been unearthed in Israel Because it was immune to ritual impurity, the use of stoneware was rife among Jews during the Roman era ... A large 2,000-year-old Second Temple period chalkstone quarry and workshop was discovered at Reina in lower Galilee by a team of archaeologists headed by Dr. Yonatan Adler... A manmade chalkstone quarry cave was recently discovered between between Nazareth and the village of Kana. What is unique in this excavation is the additional find of a stoneware workshop -- one of only four in Israel. Although pottery was also in use during this period, archaeological digs around the region point to an uptick in stoneware during the Second Temple period -- likely for ritual purity reasons, as attested in the Talmud. "In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee also used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone," said Adler. ... "According to ancient Jewish ritual law, vessels made of pottery are easily made impure and must be broken. Stone, on the other hand, was thought to be a material which can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce some of their everyday tableware from stone," he said. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 04:45:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:45:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh Message-ID: . At first, I was going to pose these nitpicky questions on our Mesorah list. But then I found some answers, and I decided to share my journey with the whole chevra. If it doesn't put you to sleep from boredom, please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Shmos 1:10 - Paro starts panicking over the Jewish Problem. First, they're multiplying, and then, "ki sikrena milchama..." 1. What is the root of Sikrena? Kuf resh aleph, or kuf resh heh? 2a. If it is kuf resh heh - "if war happens" - then what is the aleph for? Is this a kri/ksiv situation? Does anyone explicitly refer to it as a kri/ksiv? 2b. If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? Why does every single translation and peirush render it as "if war occurs", or similar? Or do you know of any exceptions that I couldn't find? 3. What form is this word? My guess is that it is Kal, future, 3rd person feminine plural: "They(f) will...". That fits well with "proclaim", if "they(f)" refers to the attacking nations. But if the root is kuf resh heh, I don't know why the plural would be used. Is "milchama" some sort of plural or collective noun? Other relevant information: RSR Hirsch says that "sikrena" is a plural form, and therefore "milchama" is probably not the subject but the object. for the word's meaning, he refers us to Yeshaya 41:22, where this same word occurs. But as I see it, these words are not spelled the same: Where Shemos spells it with an aleph, Yeshaya has a yud. (I suppose Rav Hirsch considers this difference insignificant, but I'm not knowledgable enough to understand why.) I did find one lone voice who says that the root of "sikrena" is "read/call" and not "happen/occur". Namely, Mandelkern's Concordance. Yeshaya 41:22 appears on 1047d, in the root kuf-resh-heh. But he places our pasuk, Shemos 1:10, on 1043c, in the root kuf-resh-aleph. Another data point from Mandelkern: His opinion is that "sikrena" in Shemos 1:10 is a third-person plural verb. This is different from the second-person plural verb, which is spelled exactly the same, and appears in Rus 1:20 and 1:21, and in the Concordance on 1042a. I suspect that Mandelkern would endorse "*they* will proclaim war" as a correct translation. Finally, I tried a non-Jewish website devoted to translation issues. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7122.htm is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, and other similar sources. I probably could have gotten the same information from Mandelkern, but seeing their English translation on-screen made these examples jump out at me: Bereshis 42:4 - [Yaakov] said, "Lest disaster *happen* [to Binyamin]." Bereshis 49:1 - Yaakov said, "... I will tell you what will *happen* to you at the end of days." Vayikra 10:19 - Aharon told Moshe, "... such has *happened* to me..." Devarim 22:6 - When you *happen* upon a bird's nest... In all of the above, the Torah's word is spelled with a kuf-resh-ALEPH root. I find myself forced to concede that there is strong evidence (dare I call it "proof"?) that in addition to the usual meanings "read" and "call", kuf-resh-aleph can also mean "happen". Having said that, I was tempted to take this even farther. That page on BibleHub brings a lot examples where they translate kuf-resh-aleph as "meet". At first glance, I did not take it seriously; I felt that our common translation as "call" was more appropriate. For example, Shemos 5:3. where Moshe and Aharon tell Paro, "The God of the Hebrews nikra to us, so let us go for three days..." In my mind, this meant "Hashem called to us", and I rejected BibleHub's translation of "... has met with us." But then I read ("happened upon"? pun intended!) ArtScroll's translation, which is "...happened upon us." I was surprised by this, but I was even more surprised when I saw RSR Hirsch on this pasuk, where he tells us to look at Shemos 3:18, where he shows that these two roots (kuf resh aleph and kuf resh heh) are indeed similar. And so I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to translate Shemos 1:10 as "when a war happens". Does all this teach us anything about the small aleph in Vayikra 1:1? I leave that as an exercize for the reader. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 10:41:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish > or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? I don't think "proclaiming war" is something that can even happen in Hebrew. One can call *for* war, but the lamed is necessary. I can't think of any direct examples right now, but consider the parallel "vekarasa eleha leshalom". On the other hand we do have "ukrasem deror". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:25:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected cohen guest is the only option. If it is the aliyah itself which is sold then the cohen should be able to claim the shul had no right to sell it, and the choshen mishpat shailah is whether the shul or the buyer takes the loss. Obviously just my opinion not meant to second guess the mara d'atra. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? > > If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? > > If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:34:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:18 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I wonder if everyone agrees with the Machstzis Hashekel, i.e., would everyone agree that if you hold like the Taz the you can make kiddush on it? I was startled by the conclusion until I realized that "their minhag" refers to their own minhag, the the minhag of the Rebbes mentioned in the previous sentence. Still odd though, surely this is a psak halacha not a minhag. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn?t this an issue, since they are using less than a revi?is (approximately 3.3 oz. ? minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber?s question) > A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi?is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi?is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. > > Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi?is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m?lo lugmav (half a revi?is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. > > Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 15:22:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502922161954.91323@stevens.edu> Please see the article sent to me by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky that I have posted at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 04:55:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate Message-ID: A work around for agunot wanting to have kids: Rav Yitzhaq Yosef* ruled that an IVF child isn't a mamzer in a case of a married woman having her egg fertilized with the sperm of a man who who isn't her husband. Now an MK wants to use this psak to enable agunot to conceive via IVF and her kids won't have mamzerut problems (and have the treatment paid for by the state). * Yes other rabbis have given this ruling but when the Chief Rabbi gives a psak it gives a stronger basis for a knesset member to propose a law. See the article for more details (Hebrew): http://bit.ly/2uOmI6x I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A single woman is allowed to get IVF. Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 09:27:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170818162719.GF5755@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:25:19PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen : in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is : the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected : cohen guest is the only option... While I agree with that conclusion, the answer to your opening question was in RBW's post: :> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right :> after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are :> kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning... They sold the aliyah on the presumption that, as usual. And in fact, this "chazaqah" is so solid, RBS asked this eventually as a hypothetical; the wording he thought of was "were ... to come" not "when ... does come". Perhaps there was originally an al-tenai that simply people no longer remember. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:46:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818174604.GH5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:52:59PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha : minyanim questioned my saying "y'yasheir kochacha" to one of the olim ... : A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) : dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "Shalom aleichem", like M'gilas Rus' "H' : imachem // y'varechcha H'", is also a blessing, but the "problem" comes : up when it's utilized as a greeting. My rule: If said as a social pleasantry, or as a mindless playback of a recording your parents / society taught you, it's a greeting. But if you care more about whether the RBSO heard you than the person you're saying it about, it's a berakhah. And usually it's somewhere between those poles. With a skew toward the greeing end. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:02:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:02:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A : single woman is allowed to get IVF. I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei mi shelo nivra". But... This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless worse than never existing at all? (I adapted that line from arguments about aborting a fetus that tests positive for Downs. How many people with Downs hate their life so much that they regret existing?) : Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Marriage as described in Bereishis 1, perhaps. "Peru urevu umil'u es ha'aetz". But the intimacy of Bereishis 2 is not adressed "... al kein ya'azov ish es aviv ve'es imo, vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu lebasar echad". My version of "the talk" with my boys started with these two pesuqim. Explaining that relations are to serve these two functions. And also, while birth control can address one of these two, extramarital relations outside of "vedavaq be'isho" translate into exercises in weakening that bond, that gift HQBH gave us. (Adding now, as this bit would go over their heads: to approximate Adam Qadmon as humanity is described before Adam and Chavah are made from one into two.) And then, after establishing theological context, the talk continued on the usual biological and psychological planes. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 11:27:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses in Judaism Message-ID: R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/ He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American Eclipse of 2017: Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 14:10:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: . On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients. I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. > ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient > with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the > well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov > yisroel", just like many people today. And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then what did they do wrong? The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good description of it, I'd appreciate it.) The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food that even went by another name. And the very first time that they asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained. In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product. Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I wrote here 15 years ago: (http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03) > Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free > breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored > liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I > understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that > assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that > one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff, > and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap > orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice, > isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 11:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:29:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> References: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <529972d5-f946-74d5-e97e-26fbf8cbced3@starways.net> On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural > : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any > : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a > : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A > : single woman is allowed to get IVF. > > I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei > mi shelo nivra". But... I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view. > This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless > worse than never existing at all? Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 17:30:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:30:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, Cheilev and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. Is this correct? Can anyone offer some illumination? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 21:43:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4577e69b-191e-24b3-90cc-757555b83cd6@sero.name> On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... > Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I > don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at their lodgings. Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream? A grocery. >> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient >> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the >> well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov >> yisroel", just like many people today. > And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then > what did they do wrong? This is precisely the AhS's point. He strongly rejects the view of those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens when one does so. > > The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are > "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". > (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good > description of it, I'd appreciate it.) It's schmant in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet cream for coffee. Cf smetana, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour cream is zoyer shmetene. > The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to > what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food technology made everything complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel. (This is why the term "cholov stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used. RMF rejects the idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils its requirements.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 07:17:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: ' R' Zev Sero wrote: > No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type > of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in > Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least > one could before modern food technology made everything > complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to > *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, > etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. Summary: I concede. Longer version: I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as a resident of the 5700s. I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned about such things. I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the, there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly, there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them. There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in 1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the drivers for this change. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 12:04:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:04:07 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: <201708201904.v7KJ47OS022554@hsdm.com> >And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") . From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 22:11:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 01:11:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. > So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, > Cheilev > and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly > think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev. I don't know whether deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something that is identical to chelev so there is no question. (The difference may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone will think it's chelev? Obviously we don't worry about that because an observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to that conclusion?) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 08:37:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk Message-ID: . Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, but we don't hold like him. In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking, eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di" come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds. Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a - <<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds, who don't have mother's milk. >>> Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says it's d'rabanan. We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav", WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di" would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we learn from the word "imo"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 06:32:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse Message-ID: <1503322352892.87303@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 15:09:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis Message-ID: . Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads: > Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so > which bracha should be said? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for > which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the > acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and > great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. > It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. > Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe- > inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? > > Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and > Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh > Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which > are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states > that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's > sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many > commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. > As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses > are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. > > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of anyone else who comments on this question? Thanks! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 16:06:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses : > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah : > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). : : Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of : anyone else who comments on this question? The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses. The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human sin. Wholesale, not retail. The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer to the question in his words. The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who continue ignoring such signs. In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence". At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who aren't religiously moved by it. Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally used language of Wisdom and Intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 17:07:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> References: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b@sero.name> > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer > to the question in his words. That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's servant, the moon. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 04:11:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? Message-ID: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Something doesn?t add up. Every 28 years around April 8th, we recite the birkat hachama (last time, April 8th 2009, next time, April 8th 20037). Every month we recite the blessing over the moon. And as I learned, the ?oseh ma?aseh b?reshis? is over lightening but not over thunder and volcanoes. For thunder and volcanoes I thought we say ?shekocho g?vuroso malei olam.? Regarding an eclipse as an incredible and awe inspiring event, so is being in the presence of a child being born or in the presence of a person having being declared dead, resuscitated back to life. Is there a b?rocho for that? > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 07:16:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170822141651.LBEF22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> I heard a very interesting shiur at yutorah. Everything below was mentioned, plus one other thing: a great explanation of a gemara (or another Chazal) that says something like: "X" comes into the world (X might have been eclipses, or, if not, something related in some way) with four reasons: - not appropriately euglogizing an av beis din - (I can't remember) - homosexuality - the death of two brothers at once (or in battle) (He started the connection my explaining the ma'aseh of the moon's complaint against H' at creation . . . ) Here's the problem with my post: - I got to it via the "featured shiruim" on my YUTorah phone app -- and it's not there now. I went to the desktop site, and I can't seem to find it - I don't remember who it was (except that the rav who gave it over had a middle or eastern European accent) (My excuse: I went to western South Carolina to see the eclipse. The 8 hour drive home turned into almost 13 hours because of traffic, and I drove alone. I heard a lot of shiurim and my mind is pretty fuzzy . . . ) FWIW, -- Sholom At 05:40 AM 8/22/2017, via Avodah wrote: >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 >From: Zev Sero via Avodah >To: Avodah >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis >Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b at sero.name> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't > see an answer > > to the question in his words. > >That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points >out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that >eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or >moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means >that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens >is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or >mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, >even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise >and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when >Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. > >This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural >phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but >Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind >Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. > >This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry >at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them >and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't >they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it >removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun >is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's >servant, the moon. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 17:47:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:47:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness Message-ID: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> There was a discussion on Areivim about a particular person who was accused of committing a particularly evil crime. Someone posted, among other comments, ?I will add that the "rabbi" who committed these horrific acts is objectively G-dless. Apikores is too mild a term for him.? My response to this fits more for Avodah than Areivim: I know this man and most of the other players in this story. And while I haven?t interviewed him recently to test R?n TK?s assertion, it is my opinion that as reprehensible as these events are, it doesn?t mean that the person who committed them is Godless. Is any sinner Godless? More likely, a sinner like this carries around a huge measure of denial and/or conflict. But that doesn?t make him or her Godless. The Gemara says, in fact, that some sinners ? during the moment they?re sinning(!) are close to Hashem (Berachos 63a). I?ll elaborate: In truth, the argument can be made that any time a person sins he or she is Godless. Tomer Devorah in the first perek makes the contrapositive point ? that Shuras HaDin would dictate that Hashem remove himself from a person at the time of his sin, resulting in the sinner?s instant death. His response to that is that Hashem?s mercy is what keeps the person alive ? Hashem does not remove himself from the person, and keeps sustaining him or her even while he or she is sinning with the very power invested by Hashem in them that enables them to sin. But probably most times well-meaning people sin, their sin comes from one of the following three: ignorance, negligence, or lust. Ignorance: Not knowing or remembering something is forbidden. Negligence: Not caring enough to take care not to inadvertently sin. Lust: Being blinded to the evil that one is doing because of the strong desire to benefit from it. In all those cases, the person who is sinning is not thinking about Hashem. He?s ? in your terms ? ?objectively Godless.? But can he really be called that? Let?s talk about two extremes: The person who walks in front of another person who is saying Shemoneh Esrei (relatively minor), vs. the person who is not shomer negiah (relatively major). In both those cases it?s not that the person is not thinking about Hashem (which he admittedly is not), but that the person is not thinking about sin. Or, more succinctly, the person is just not thinking. Not Godless, but thought-less. And that can sum up all of the three categories ? ignorance, negligence, and lust cause people to sin by not thinking. So what happens when a person is a thinker? There are two possibilities. The person can be like Nimrod, "???? ????? ??????? ????? ??" ? he knows Hashem and doesn?t listen to him, although he recognized Hashem?s existence. That?s a plain old Rasha. But he?s not Godless ? ???? ?????. The second possibility is that that person does think about Hashem. He does think about his actions. He does know how bad it is what he?s doing. In other areas, not his weakness, he does keep to Hashem?s will. He is ???? ????? but he?s not ?????? ????? ??. Such a person, I think, is incredibly conflicted. He knows about Hashem and he?s rebelling against him on the one hand, while trying to obey him on the other. That person might be evil, might be scum of the earth, but he?s not Godless. On the contrary. And although we have to condemn such a person and his horrible actions, and we don?t envy his punishment in the World to Come, we might also be a little jealous of his relationship with Hashem. This may well be the reason the Gemara tells us that a person who says Lashon Hara about a talmid chacham falls in Gehennom, since the talmid chacham definitely did Teshuvah (Berachos 19a). How do we know he definitely did teshuvah? Because a talmid chacham, by definition, is a thinker. He didn?t indulge in non-thinking ? that?s not in his nature. And even if he had a moment of weakness and did something wrong, he certainly rebounded and regretted it the next day. (Contrast the talmid chacham with the non-thinker of before ? he just continues blissfully on with his life not realizing or caring that he sinned. That?s why we are not required to presume that he did Teshuvah.) A Godless person, properly defined, is one who denies Hashem?s existence completely. We have no basis, in this case or in many others, to assert that those are the circumstances we?re dealing with. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 23:43:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 06:43:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? On the topic Kvct Joel Rich Sent from my iPhone THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 21:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:06 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: It seems we agree that there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you are, eating what looks for all intents and purposes, to be Cheilev Yet Chazal were not Gozer to prohibit this due to Maris Ayin. Is the physical difference between Cheilev and Shuman more than the difference between fish blood and animal blood? Would there be no confusion between red coloured liquids, like wine and animal blood? There is no MA on Ben PeKuAh that is salvaged as a non-fully-gestated, no matter how long it lives and no matter how much it looks smells tastes and feels like an ordinary beast. Why is that so? Proposing that - IT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO CHEILEV SO THERE IS NO QUESTION - seems a little fantastic And indeed we should ask - why don't we worry that onlookers will think that beef Shuman is Cheilev? Is it OBVIOUS that there is no reason to suspect it is Cheilev, so why jump to that conclusion? I do not think so. I suspect that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies is as a product similar to the prohibited product. Perhaps like the position that Min BeMino is determined by name not by taste, Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 04:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Since when? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 07:09:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> References: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170823140919.GB32207@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:28AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: :> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat : Since when? Tangent: One of my pet peeves about Brisker derekh is how "chalos sheim" often is just begging the question. X needs a P, or else it doesn't really have the chalos sheim X. It's an empty statement, just saying that P is needed because the category needs P. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:13:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:13:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tax Evasion and Esrog purchasing In-Reply-To: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> References: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170825191326.GA15871@aishdas.org> Back in Sep 2014 Every year I mention the problem of buying an esrog from someone who > offers a better price if you pay in cash. Last year I was able to shift > from "li nir'eh it's a problem". RHSchachter reports that according to > RJBSoloveitchik, helping the seller evade taxes in this way is lifnei iver > (deOraisa, not "just" the derabbanan of mesayeia) and THE ESROG IS PASUL. They just put R' Asher Weiss's teshuvah on this subject up at : Tvunah in English Question: I recently went to a store and was told if a pay in cash then i would not need to pay taxes. If it is obvious that by me paying in taxes the store owner would not pay the proper tax on this sale to the government, am I allowed to do such a purchase or there is a problem of [lifnei iveir lo sisein mikhshol]. Answer: This would not seem to be the actual prohibition of Lifnei Iver as cash payment is inherently permissible and he can and may still pay taxes. There are a number of reasons a person would prefer cash payments, aside from tax evasion. At the same time, with regards to taxes we should generally assume Dina Demalchusa Dina and not encourage or promote tax evasion. It would seem RAW agrees on the halakhah, but disagrees that you should be chosheish that the preference for cash is due to tax evasion. Although in the first sentence the sho'el says the salesman told him so outright!? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:29:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:29:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Eilu va'Eilu Message-ID: <20170825192948.GA17720@aishdas.org> Because how can I /not/ share something on eilu va'eilu? -micha ----- Forwarded message from torahweb at torahweb.org ----- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:31:45 -0400 From: torahweb at torahweb.org Subject: updates to Rav Schachter's dvar Torah To: weeklydt at torahweb.org TorahWeb EILU V'EILU Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim -- both opinions are the words of the Living G-d." although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she'ha'Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She'b'al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah. The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether -- according to their perspective -- the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim." This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions imply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v'eilu. Even when we do apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" it does not mean that halacha l'ma'aseh one has the right to follow either opinion. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v'eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, "Beis Shamai b'makom Beis Hille eina Mishna", i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don't even consider the views of Beis Shamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d'hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b'chutz la'aretzm, even when dealing with a d'oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l'hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l'ma'aseh. (See my sefer, B'Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.) Likewise the poskim assume that when you have a shitah y'chida'ah, a lone opinion among poskim not shared by others, this view also does not constitute a slight safeik. The Beis Shmuel (Shulchan Aruch, Even HoEzer siman 90, s'if kattan 6) thinks that even if the Rambam agrees with the Ri Migash on an position not agreed upon by other poskim, this view should be totally ignored, since the Rambam was so taken by the genius of the Ri Migash (his father's rebbe), and would naturally be inclined to accept his opinion without even thinking twice (even though in several instances the Rambam does reject his opinion), this psak would be considered a shitah y'chida'ah and should be totally ignored. It was recently reported that a certain "beis din" permitted a married woman to remarry without a get, because it was ascertained that her husband was not Sabbath observant at the time he married her, and the halacha considers one who is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia to be like a non-Jew. And, they reasoned, we all know that if a non-Jew marries a Jewish woman the marriage does not take effect. This ruling is absolutely scandalous. First of all, the consensus of recent poskim has been that the concept of mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia doesn't apply today since so many Jews are not shomer Shabbos and the term "b'farhesia" has the connotation that this individual is breaking the discipline in the community (Chazon Ish and Binyan Tzion.) The members of this "beis din" would most certainly have been the first to say that such a Jew would not cause wine he touched to become prohibited because he is not considered to be like a non-Jew. More importantly, the view that a Jew who is treated as a non-Jew because he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia can't effectively marry a Jewish woman is totally ignored, because it is against an explicit gemara (Yevamos 47b) that states that even if a Jew converts to another religion and marries a Jewish woman the marriage does in fact take effect. We can't apply the concept of eilu v'eilu to this view; it is simply incorrect. Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v'eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v'eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does notmean that it has ramifications halacha l'ma'aseh. There are rules and regulations regarding psak halacha; this discipline is not hefker (is not a free for all.) The parsha tells us that the halachic positions of the Beis Din Hagadol are binding on all Jews. The Sanhedrin was a group of Torah scholars who were clearly head and shoulders above all of their contemporaries. They were the gedolei hador (the Torah giants of their generation), and the gedolei hador have the status of rabo muvhak for their entire generation, even for those who never even met them (see Tosafos on Berachos 31b and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 244:10.) The halachic positions of one's rebbe muvhak are binding on him, and the halachic views of the gedolei hador (who are clearly head and shoulders above the other Torah scholars of their generation) may not be ignored. None of the members of the aforementioned "beis din" are recognized by anyone as belonging to the category of gedolei hador, and even if it had been a case where we would apply eilu v'eilu, since the gedolei hador have unanimously rejected it for generations, no one today who is not in the category of gedolei hador has the right to go against this rejection! Rabbinic leaders throughout the generations are always concerned with the plight of agunos, but coming up with non-halachic solutions is not the Orthodox way. The Talmud Yerushalmi seems to hold that the concept of pikuach nefesh doesn't only apply when one's life is in danger, but also if one's life will be made extremely miserable this too falls under the category of pikuach nefesh, which allows one to violate Torah laws. The Yerushalmi (quoted by Rav Yosef Engle in Teshuvas Aguna) says that we would have allowed every agunah to violate the prohibition of adultery if not for the fact that we are dealing with gilui arayos (forbidden marriages) where the halacha does not permit one to violate the mitzvah even in a case of literal pikuach nefesh -- even to save one's life. The aforementioned "beis din" is doing a disservice to the Orthodox Jewish community at large, and specifically to these poor agunos, by misleading them with absolutely scandalously fallacious piskei halacha. Let the public beware! One must be of the caliber of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski in his generation or Rav Moshe Feinstein in the past generation in order to determine in a given case if the halacha permits a woman to get remarried without a get. POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the aforementioned "beis din", also see important letter from Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz regarding the "International Beit Din" . Copyright (c) 2017 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 09:42:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Poem For Elul Message-ID: <20170827164248.GA14698@aishdas.org> Saw on Facebook and wanted to share. I am not sure if R Bin Goldman intended the title to be "a poem for elul" (sic) and the first line read (in Hebrew, my transliteration) "Lekha Amar Libi" or if he wrote a poem titled "Lekha Amar Libi, which he introduced as a poem for Elul. I am presenting it as if the latter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Lekha Amar Libi [R'] Bin Goldman My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:18:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach Message-ID: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)? If not, where is its force grounded? Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own law as long as it doesn?t contradict the seven? Who would be eligible to be on a Bnai Noach court and how much interpretive independence would they have? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:19:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Moshe and aharon Message-ID: <846178C1-4E50-4DC0-9C2B-7D9B22F0E745@sibson.com> Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b ) two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to debate] Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse Kt Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 18:53:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:10 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... Message-ID: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin presented in an earlier message. The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product. Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting - please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when? Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera, see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its - Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues] R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. Would you please explain how and/or why? = = = = = = Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are 3 issues that require clarification: 1. Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protests? Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: 1. Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. 2. Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:34:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8326ab8f-6f6d-4868-0fd3-9a28f508abd0@sero.name> On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. > Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the important) distinction. I don't know how similar they look on the surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with different names even in English. > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Once again, I object. Who says so? > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be > performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to > the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 07:20:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828142031.GA10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin : presented in an earlier message. : The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis. As in: : R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the : application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. : Would you please explain how and/or why? This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an observer. See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur, not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half of the label on the "almond milk". But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat? Tangent: : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk... WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats and the milk were cooked together. As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar. After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to wait to eat. The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's. (My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?) Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs. But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked them together? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:06:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (MorrisIsaacson via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog Message-ID: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) Thank you, Moshe Isaacson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:20:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the : sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk : that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that : milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us : that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would : have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would : have been protected from those other ingredients... This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out something else... According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is that of kosher species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of the milking. Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched by a Yisrael. Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly, neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy more than chazal's taqanah. For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's ruling exempting powdered milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent > adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still > applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched > by a Yisrael. > > Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 10:52:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa : lechumra. Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines right above your comment. (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about without the gezeira. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:52:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828155218.GC10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote: : Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated : with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't resplond when you asked on another forum.) Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid. The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and Tzefaniah 2:14. But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol to it. The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll", because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French. Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would share that metaphor. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. > > : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash > : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa > : lechumra. > Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal > visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing > "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. > So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines > right above your comment. He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah. And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5fe6203e-5ca3-2df7-9dc4-ab23193ca9e8@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF > held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus > inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping kashrus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:18:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:18:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have : done. I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:50:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7a7271fd-d51c-6efc-2eb8-8d88dc02bf52@sero.name> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose > : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need > : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have > : done. > > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further supervision is needed. I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care about reshus. What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his employees or guests. The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours from the bottle into his cup. And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. So what makes it CY? This can be further split into two scenarios: (1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision. It was CY lim'hadrin from the moment of milking until this nochri bought it. But now it isn't. (2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at one point it was already in reshus yisroel. In other words, there was more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from the bottle. Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus nochri? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 15:07:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? In-Reply-To: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> References: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170828220709.GH31841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the : bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') : is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, : an eclipse is not included in this list... The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of an eclipse is for others, not Jews. BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah? Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said? I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im (mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see Creation in it but can't. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 13:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828202847.GG31841@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature : calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow : and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as : Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. ... : But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar : and non-Tzon, this non-animal? : Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence : my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You went over my head. I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73. So what are you asking? ... : Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, : the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even : if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur : will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and CAN be chal on it. As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type fatty deposits? Where this question is coming from: My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of a chayah is permissible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 17:25:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:25:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances Message-ID: Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis. He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined by the names we use to identify things. But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as far as I can tell, has not been addressed. Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the facts of the Halacha. I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by. We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino, is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste? Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop - stop trying to force the round peg. I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined. = = = = = Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked with milk from the Pesikta he quotes. Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, it must still be Halachically coherent. Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats. - - - - - Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained why there is no MA to cook these with dairy. He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different names even in English. Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are. Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi. Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim, take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is explaining. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:10:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:10:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? Message-ID: The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The answer is Yes and also No There is an Issur to eat Neveila but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat - RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2 Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah. Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by the Gemara, Chullin 58a. A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar, a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo. After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before being incubated] from unfertilised eggs. Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif]. Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it. What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision must be made, which is ZVZGo. BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa. Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher chickens when they hatch. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 16:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh Message-ID: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds." Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 19:54:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which conclusions may be drawn. > Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when > HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until > they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection > and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was permitted to them. But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 05:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it (and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead) However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers. They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish. Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container with CS. How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)? (they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 08:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ab46d6f-e25f-3389-5dea-28aabefa26c1@sero.name> On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they > are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were > growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the > eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] Then why not say the same of the hen's meat? It too was mostly grown before it became a tereifah! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 12:52:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh In-Reply-To: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> References: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170829195223.GA27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, : assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? : Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as : Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in : Hebrew. TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error tragic; I wonder if it's common. I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers: Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds... until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud. Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad. The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados". The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 13:32:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170829203231.GB27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold : that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the : status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan : according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their : keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the : absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all : kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his : descendants! Not to mention all benei Racheil. Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before we were true Benei Yisrael. Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a "nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah. Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other. Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as an issur chamur. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 30 12:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:48:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments Message-ID: A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933: As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . (Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues) We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address. It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure way of life that would bring us to God's light. The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps. Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split. A couple of notes: 1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause. 2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other personal sin), he had this in mind. 3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely within the Clal doing the sin. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 06:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 07:44:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it > sounds like "original sin." YL And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:35:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170831233516.GB22179@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me :> it sounds like "original sin." YL : : Did you think only Xians beleived : in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our : view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the : guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"... The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach. Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos, all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin. Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 12:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America Message-ID: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus see there for more background: On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land... On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein... REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US. Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6: Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them, they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness, not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished, as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia. Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain, without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with our very eyes ... This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel] was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150 years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather, that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times. (Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America being a "medinah shel chessed.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:43:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have several comments. The OU writes: > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > the home for Shabbos. Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs of the home." In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting the lights is part of that! The OU continues: > The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. > Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to > sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama), > women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to > me it sounds like "original sin." I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I think that's all the Tur is saying. It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive from the same event. Finally, the OU writes: > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > the wicks will easily catch fire. It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be *more* difficult to light later on. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 18:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:57:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh Message-ID: NEVEILAH Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the prohibition to eat Neveilah It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2 However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah. I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by Halacha so why is it Assur to eat it? MARIS AYIN The following are universally accepted 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha and even Minhag 2] AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta] 3] AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA? I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal. and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats, even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA. The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah - Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not. Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has no direct Halachic component to it Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a reflection of Halacha. Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden. Please provide some sources. As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is also predicated upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim. As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish? ISSUR BBCh I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor - only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook. The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out - the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:06:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:06:02 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a little bit will do] That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However, for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen. The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:00:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb'al peh Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression > that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may > disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no > one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within > the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from > Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions > made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that > seem problematic to our minds." > > Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, > assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not > so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies > as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent > in Hebrew. I could respond in any of several ways. Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial. I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash, until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that Nach is also included.) Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural sources, and with hardly any logical arguments. Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin: What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his stereotypes about mishnayos.) This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion, and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our practice is XYZ. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 22:23:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? Ben On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system > of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to > see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or > murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow > one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and > speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 06:49:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org>, <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. Kvct Joel rich > On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? > > Ben > >> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system >> of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to >> see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or >> murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow >> one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and >> speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkampgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:45:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based ideology. But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses. I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate, interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need. So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:58:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ > Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas > haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's > because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something. Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive, and they recognized this. The implications for today are self-evident. As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the Zionists actively fought against religious practice. -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:11:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote: : That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I : don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:19:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:19:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict so many murderers. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:27:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901152729.GI31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so : that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power : and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, : false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why : we continue to remember Amalek. R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8) RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can can pass as soon as we stop being a threat. Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as chinam. So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah. This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on what they did, and not let it Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't, why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred we feel once we realize they hate us back. The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how to address sin'as chinam. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:27:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only > superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any > other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't > mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it > became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly > damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:08:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:08:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias" and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell "Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote: : As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign : names? As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations. The use of : aleph and ayin always makes things interesting. The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE 126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them. It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.) My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud. There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef; patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud. On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued: :> The very point I was trying to make is that yes, : I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an : English word into Hebrew. : If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1 : spelling. Especially for more complicated names. As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)... There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others. I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself. The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide English sounds among the established transliterations. "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the "j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and an English "ch". The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or "Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's where I could see debate. Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only said by some who know her? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:59:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4318c19f-0790-10f1-6bab-106d72e8dd9b@sero.name> On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/ thing for the "j". The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi teshuvot discuss it. IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it was spelt gimel yud. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:34:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:34:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The role of gematria, and remez in general In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <488600f7-ef1c-3adb-b551-f3c00f739ff9@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170901163421.GC28962@aishdas.org> >From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria itself reached Avodah topicality. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim: > True. But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li > pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see > how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that. > R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other > opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not > one of them methods used to darshan Torah. And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:" : Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves : use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah... What is the role of Remez? We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh -- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.) Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat in the pasuq. And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod". But remez? What's it for? It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f004425-548e-142a-90de-48c5e91769b8@sero.name> On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. [Email #2] On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:24:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901172407.GB14196@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means : they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which would either mean: 1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency. Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't try to fix what you can? 2- They felt they were insufficient in skill. Or a third or fourth possibility. I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death. Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment. And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9, the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death. He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then. R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin" which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time getting permission to execute someone than they did. But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi wrong. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:52:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote: > > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > > the home for Shabbos. > >Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. >The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was >"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a >level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why >this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, >because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs >of the home." > >In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting >the lights is part of that! Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) >Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be >in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do >something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I >think that's all the Tur is saying. You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness, >Finally, the OU writes: > > > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > > the wicks will easily catch fire. > >It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully >understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain >piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and >difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a >charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. >In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be >counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be >*more* difficult to light later on. Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:32:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:32:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412cee4b-73a8-f3ae-bd8f-d8051cb68646@sero.name> On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually > oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:03:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, from Jewish breakaway groups). Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). Another (lesser known one): the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha. (IIRC, the S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.) My question is this: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and something comparable in secular life. Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from some other group/idealogy? (E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of it's Nazi association. But I'm looking for a better and more relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't a common design anyway)). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:07:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we : are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some : sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and : something comparable in secular life. Something so direct, it's not even an analogy. Jewish: Yichud. Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the opposite gender. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:17:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> >The following are universally accepted >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all >Halacha and even Minhag Is this the case? According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm , the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos). He also mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613. (As they each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) ) So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? (In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or so. So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did the general opinion change? Or did it?) -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 02:39:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:39:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath Message-ID: Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel during their Shabbath? Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, text (SMS) or WhatsApp? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 12:09:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality.? So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 03:38:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 06:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . I wrote: > In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then > lighting the lights is part of that! and R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of > homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? > ... > Given that roles today are much different than they were in > the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles > should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I > am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive. I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For example, if non-family are present, some might consider this non-tzniyus. But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other. > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which > are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights > with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is > no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem > with Shabbos neiros? As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that does not apply to Chanukah. My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 04:08:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: . R' Sholom Simon asked: > Can anybody think of a secular (ideally, American) law or > common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish > ourselves from some other group/idealogy? R' Micha Berger's response of yichud is a great example of where secular society has grasped the importance of gezeros which help protect us from ourselves. Similarly, secular society understands the concept of Mar'is Ayin and Chashad, and they express this in the term "Appearance of impropriety". (There's even a short Wikipedia page with that title.) But I don't think either of these is what RSS was asking for. He wants examples where the purpose is specifically: > in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, > from Jewish breakaway groups). > > Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos > (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). The answer that first came to my mind is that the original American colonists adopted various practices to distinguish themselves from their European origins. I'm sure there were others, but the main one that comes to my mind is the spelling differences between British and American English. For example, the Wikipedia article "Comparison of American and British English" says: "One particular contribution towards formalizing these differences came from Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionary (published 1828) with the intention of showing that people in the United States spoke a different dialect from Britain, much like a regional accent." Akiva Miller PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, where we are uneqivocally supposed to do it one way, but the other way is grudgingly acceptable after the fact. (Speeding limits are *not* a good example of this. The policeman will probably not stop you for going slightly over the limit, but he certainly could. That would be a Chetzi Shiur at most - a clear violation, even if not a punishable one.) If anyone has good examples, please start a new thread. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 06:07 PM 9/1/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >Jewish: Yichud. >Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy >about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the >opposite gender. Thanks -- but I'm looking more for something that is intended to separate us (us "regular Americans" -- whatever that is) from a people or nation or ideology that we find distasteful. An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). I'm looking for a law or practice that *separates/distinguishes" (havdil) - your example is more like a "fence." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest example I can think of is not secular. Mennonite (including Amish) men shave their moustaches to express their rejection of all things military, because when their customs were formed soldiers wore moustaches. > PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that > is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, There's the principle "de mimimis non curat lex", but that's more like chatzi shiur, which civil law considers mutar lechatchila. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:15:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <657b8edc-97f8-5fa2-45c9-7efe94200b60@sero.name> On 02/09/17 05:39, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel > during their Shabbath? > > Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, > text (SMS) or WhatsApp? If you know they won't break shabbos to read it, or at least you don't know they will break shabbos to read it, then I don't see a problem. "Ee ata metzuveh al shevisas keilim". It's not shabbos for you; it is shabbos for the remote instrument that you are manipulating, but that is not a problem. The same would apply to operating a waldo that's in a place where it's shabbos; it's shevisas keilim, which BH says is not a thing. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:28:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: <12a7adb9-e48c-7af7-3fb2-7ee96c2a3799@sero.name> On 02/09/17 15:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue > here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a > reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and > Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but > it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand > that we live in this reality. But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:51:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:51:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (1:4) writes: "When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel ... They would come to the Beis Din at the entrance to the Azara. If they knew [the din] they would tell them, if not everyone went into the Beis Din and asked. ... If the matter was not clear to the Beis Din they would discuss the issue until all agreed or they they would take a vote and follow the majority and tell the petitioners this is the halacha" The Rambam is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 88 which states the following: "At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Beis Din Hagadol. The Beis Din Hagadol was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah). If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide. After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai)." There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the Tannaim, the Gemara in fact related that they left their place in the Lishkas ha'Gazis 40 years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. If so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol in existence? 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:23:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: , <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: From: Sholom Simon Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:17 PM > The following are universally accepted > 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha > and even Minhag > Is this the case? ... > So... what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone > accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? As in many things, the Rambam seems not to have been noticed. This is distressing, because the Rambam tries to present things according to halokho, not according to medrash. As he says in his introduction to the Tenth Pereq of Sanhedrin in Perush haMishnayot, medrash is almost never to be taken literally, but rather comes to teach us things (but says that most Jews don't understand that). For halakhic purposes, the Rambam explains in Hil. M'lakhim 9:1, that Adam haRishon observed 6 things that he was commanded. One was added after the Mabbul, so yielding 7 mitzvos that Noah and his descendents were commanded to observe. Avraham Avinu was also commanded concerning Milah, and he took upon himself the obligation to daven Shacharit. Yitzchak added another two, and Ya'aqov another two. When rabbis say that Avraham observed all 613 Mitvot, it is obviously not meant literally: many, many of the 613 only came into force after King Shlomo built the BhM. Before that, there were a whole set of other mitzvot (such as that the Kohanim and only the Kohanim wereto take apart and assemble the Mishkan, and that the L'viyim and only the L'viyim were to carry the parts of the Mishkan). These were commandments from HQBH, but not part of the set of 613. When the BhM was built, those mitzvot disappeared and new mitzvot, which are part of the 613 count, came into effect. So before that no one "observed" the 613. And some of the 613 are only applicable to Kohanim, and some only to L'viyim, and some only to Yisra'elim, so there was no person ever who observed or could observe all 613 mitzvot. So when we say nowadays that Jews are commanded to observe 613 mitzvot it does not mean that any person is commanded to observe all 613; it means that there exist 613 mitzvot. Every Jew is commanded to learn all 613, however. So it is possible that the Avot learned all 613. But most of them were not technically mitzvot then, because they were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and before that no one was commanded to do them. So what does the Torah mean when it says that Avraham observed "mishmarti, mitzvotai,chuqqotai v'torotai" (sic, not "toratei) in Chapter 26? The same thing that it means in 18:19 "for I know him, that he will command his children and his house after him to obeserve the way of the Lord." There is no question that Avraham Avinu was ALSO commanded to observe what Chazal include in the term "Derekh Eretz" and the Rambam explicates in Hil. De'ot Pereq 6, which included such basic things as proper behavior and middot (and one of the main goals of the Aishdas organization, and nowadays is called "mussar"). Chazal say that all of those things have to come before Torah, i.e. before learning rest of the Torah. And, as Micha the founder of Aishdas can tell you better than anyone, there are so many, many things that one has to learn and focus on to observe these most basic of the commandments. So Avraham would have had his hands full teaching people those. Did he also learn all the mitzvot that would be given later? He was a novi, and so perhaps could, but one cannot say that he "observed" them in the literal sense, because how could one "observe" a law that had not yet been instituted and was not even applicable? Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 17:39:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when : American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. : (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their national ethnicity. I think this topic has become non-PC. Nationalism is even a dirty word in some circles; viewed as faschism, or fascism-lite. You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without running afoul of rules about discussing politics? But I hope that at least relating the two topics will provide something to think about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 10:58:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel > and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the > Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din > Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority and passed their 18 gezeros. The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the period of the zugos. Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 12:44:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:44:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > >> 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel >> and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the >> Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din >> Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. >> > > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority > and passed their 18 gezeros. That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. > The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. > Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the > period of the zugos. Yes that is exactly the question. Why didn't they resolve all of the Machlokes in the Mishnayos. > Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the > other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. Wouldn't that violate the issur of lo tasuguru mipnei ish? > > > -- > Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, > zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 18:14:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7333f45e-37cb-8ad0-ca8f-bffbb68048f8@gmail.com> Sun, 3 Sep 2017 Marty Bluke asked: > ...The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the > Tannaim... > so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence > there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students > had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol > in existence? > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and > Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? > Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for > most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. By '''in existence,'' the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The English-language Jewish history books that have been published over the past few decades follow this model. I have also done so in ''The Dynamics of Dispute,'' (Judaica Press) Chapter 10, ''The Control and Proliferation of Machlokess, Keeping the Torah One.'' Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 01:59:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:59:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:01:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> On 05/09/17 04:59, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both > David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never > attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females must be killed as well. Your question of how Agag's descendants, conceived the night before he was killed, managed to become so numerous so quickly applies here too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:17:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? Message-ID: According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. However, others disagree. Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/yblaj8cu If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:49:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:49:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it > into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? > Greek changed a lot over the centuries. I'm not sure if it even existed as a language at the time of Joshua, and the Greek alphabet was certainly much later. If Greek was the one of the languages the Torah was translated into then it would probably have been unrecognizable in the Hellenistic period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 09:17:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> On 05/09/17 11:17, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate > it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? 1. Ptolemy, not Alexander. 2. 72 sages, not 70. 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) exist today? 4. Even if the writing did still exist, would whatever passed for Greek in 1271 BCE have been intelligible in 271 BCE? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:36:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:36:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/5/2017 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. > However, others disagree. ... > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 > languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages > to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek > translation? Well, for one thing, it was Ptolemy, rather than Alexander. But for another, maybe it wasn't necessary. Perhaps if they'd simply asked for the authoritative Greek translation, they'd have gotten it, and any number of distortions of the Torah caused by the Septuagint wouldn't have happened. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:20:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> References: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170905182040.GB2253@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:17:10PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the : writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure : to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) : exist today? Rishonim on Yehoshua also argue how many such monuments there were. For example Rashi (at least as explained in Gur Aryeih) has three copies: one in the Yaedrin, one on the mizbeiach on Har Eivel (which is named in Devarim) and one at Gilgal. AND there is a machloqes tanna'im (Sotah 35b) about how they were written. But I think both shitos hold they were engraced. R' Shimon says that the stones were plastered, and then the words were engraved into the plaster. R' Yehudah held the stones were engraved, and then plastered on top of them. R' Yehudah's position sounds like it's describing more permanent writing, but how would you get to see it? You would not only need to peel off the plaster, the plaster could well get into the engraved letters. To address the original question: Ezra haSofer used majority to produce the mesoretic text, leaving us with a sefer that didn't match any of the copies found. Why didn't he check the Hebrew copy/ies from the monunemnt(s)? Wouldn't a text engraved by people who met MRAH be more authoritative than any of them? (All this assuming, as is the post I'm replying to, that they contained the whole Torah. That is the shitah we're trying to understand, no?) So it would seem to me that just as we have no idea how to find this monument / these monuments, even if the writing is still legible, they were already unavailable in Ezra's day. Unsurprising, given how much more pragmatic and used knowledge was lost. And even if they did know where to find it, either the writing wore off the plaster, or perhaps the plaster was too embedded after all those centuries to be picked off to read the stone. Regardless of the shift in Greek, the stones weren't even usable when the target was the original Hebrew. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170905184626.GC2253@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:17:58PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >The following are universally accepted : >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all : >Halacha and even Minhag : : Is this the case? In a footnote to one of his father-in-law's maamarim, RMMS (the LR), writes that this is meant that they did so "beruchnius, velo begashmius": Some mitzvos they "only" fulfilled the point of the mitzvah without physically doing the mitzvah. E.g. tefillin, with its mention of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. Others, they did perform the mitzvah physically, but still they only did so to accomplish the ruchnius -- it was only incidentally physical, and only sometimes in the same form. See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31608&st=&pgnum=137 For example (not given there), the Zohar links Yaaqov's spotted sticks and changing the coats of sheep to the mitzvah of tefillin. But the sticks didn't become qadosh, because uplifting and redeeming the gashmi wasn't part of the plan. There is more in Liqutei Sichos on Lekh Lekha www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/68627/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Lech-Lecha.htm Given RMMS's relationship to shitas Rashi, and our stereotype that chassidus tends to take maximalist positions, I thought this position would be somewhat interesting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 13:30:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:30:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> Message-ID: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females > must be killed as well. How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what the mitzvah and the dinim were? Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently no one informed him. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 20:43:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 05/09/17 16:30, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females >> must be killed as well. > > How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what > the mitzvah and the dinim were? They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 07:45:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:43:20PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe : taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of : "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in : front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never : knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so : angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. BB 21b. I think he concluded said rebbe (Yoav) did it as intentional ziyuf, not an error. R Mordechai Breuer concludes that the semichut (i.e. the "X of Y" form of the word for X) for "zakhar" could follow a variant conjugation and come out "zekher". And while it's hard to picture confusing "z'khar" and "zeikher", "zekher" and "zeikher" is much easier. The "zekher" vs "zeikher" debate over what the Gra had for Parashas Zakhor was over which means the Gra's intent was to tell us the word means "reminder / memorial" rather than "memory". The mesorah is "zeikher". But if zekher could mean both "males of" and "memory of", the mistake is VERY easy. (Not that RMB would worry about the possibility of the Gra disagreeing with the mesoretic niqud.) But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? It's strange. In our culture, it would be the "hot topic" of study for the weeks leading into the war... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 11:48:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > error. No. Why would he do that? The Rishonim discuss whether the rebbe himself didn't know the correct pronunciation, or whether he knew it and therefore taught it corrrectly, but didn't pay enough attention to how each boy was pronouncing it, so never noticed that young Yoav had misheard him and was reading "z'char". > But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 15:51:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an : >error. : No. Why would he do that? A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't get clarification /before/ the war? And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most of the animals? Actually, if you figure the remaining animals were for qorbanos, he was planning on all them being killed. A random reenactment of Yericho? Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 19:12:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> On 06/09/17 18:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > : >error. > > : No. Why would he do that? > > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. I don't understand why you keep bringing David up. What does he have to do with this story? The story is about Yoav, not David. And I repeat my question, why would Yoav's rebbe intentionally corrupt the pasuk? Why would Yoav even suspect him of it? > :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? > > : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. So how does that make Yoav a gadol? > And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? Why would it even occur to him that Yoav had such a misunderstanding? > And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most > of the animals? Do you mean Shaul? Perhaps Yoav didn't know the details of what had happened all those years ago. In fact how many people ever knew about Shmuel's rebuke of Shaul? It may have been secret by the king's order, and not spoken about, so Yoav may never even have heard of it. > Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when > it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Again, Yoav thought he had it right. He didn't even know that there was anything he needed to ask. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 00:02:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi@opengemara.org via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3FF2B345-8199-48FC-A3BD-6A89FC2540F9@opengemara.org> On September 6, 2017 3:51pm PDT, Micha Berger wrote: ... > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. .. >: Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? The Gemara (Bava Basra 21b) says that the issue was "???? ???? ????? ?' ???? [arur oseh melekhes H' remiyah -mb]" -- that the teacher should be more attentive (also, it fits into the Sugya there -- that a teacher who is medayek is better than one who's fast). Also, there's a machlokes in Sanhedrin if Yoav was a good person who made mistakes or if he was evil but found Dovid Hamelech to strong. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 09:45:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:45:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: R' Martin Bluke asked: > 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says > hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash > states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night > and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. > > However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought > Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if > Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David > and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to > wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out Amalek. First the data: * The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters. * The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh * As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's Pelishti stronghold. * Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a problem. So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul. Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans, but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert. So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them, because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites, Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself. Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command. Ad kaan. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 11:15:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Practices of the Tochacha" Message-ID: Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well written and very interesting. http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 12:54:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170907195348.KNNX30763.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: >: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when >: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. >: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). > >Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have >recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken >to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their >national ethnicity. . . . > >You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without >running afoul of rules about discussing politics? Perhaps. Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable with respect to Americans and the American Revolution! Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 14:24:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170907212448.GC15354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? : http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation: All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 15:38:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170907223856.GD15354@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" : d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its : mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? : : Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, : but we don't hold like him. Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4. It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20. ... : We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from : Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus : seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's : significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, : suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later (you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted the gezeira. Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely. : So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev, not so much. I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo" was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo" rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get that conclusion from "sevasheil". And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim lemiqra. But it crashed down. Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 23:55:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> Message-ID: Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks with him the rest of life. Ben On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there > was anything he needed to ask. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 11:55:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 13:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:06:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote: : I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw : it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather : than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," : just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. R Mordechai Breuer On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote: : How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him : what the mitzvah and the dinim were? : Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous : mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know : that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently : no one informed him. And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav was strongly deferential to David. Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the questions as to why. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 14:02:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything > about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a > unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav > was strongly deferential to David. I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. Suppose you're a caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which includes liver. You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, and I agree. You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 9 19:13:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur Message-ID: RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh [but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein Issur Chal Al Issur. So how is it that RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 03:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: > By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' > Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources > that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol > could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and > Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam says? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:18:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to function normally. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:43:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:43:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the > time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to > function normally. And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way. The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin was not functioning normally. [Email #2. -micha] One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 07:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91da4a07-6dcd-bc04-b9e0-38326532931d@sero.name> On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod to both sides. (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 10:02:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : While there may have : been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, : why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam : says? Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin, when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin. (Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.) So, what happened? My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed resolution by higher courts. IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 15:32:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45eac523-5fc8-1a2c-0c9a-256d54c2e054@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700), when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704, while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate, and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards. There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows Beis Hillel. Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become the standard one. All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 20:42:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> Message-ID: <6c5042b2-7703-92b5-e001-b2e5bc111010@zahav.net.il> In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these issues when instructing the soldiers? Ben On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 01:20:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the > one on smicha What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. [Email #2] On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different > conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed > resolution by higher courts. > > IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. > > To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of > valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 06:23:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha" > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. No, they weren't. BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they started in the very last years before it, when things were far from normal functioning. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170911151131.GF24527@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? : Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis : Sheini. But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis. I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a "veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule. The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer. Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq, for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al devarav, for even these greats weren't. So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the best answer to your question. And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to the late amoraim? Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why (leshitas haRambam) the question was still around? : On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. :> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of :> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? : The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white : approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim : "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything : in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying : that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini. (Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's just projecting.) There is a difference between 1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah saying it means the last two are in reversed order; and 2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this idea would be kosher. The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin. And yet, multiple norms would co-exist. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the destruction of Bayit Sheni. Lisa On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis > Sheini. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 07:13:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories Message-ID: <20170911141302.GB24527@aishdas.org> Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav in a different direction. I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the "q" in "Amaleiq".) : I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported : wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher : Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where : we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history. : Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint : in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious : revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of : anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where : the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in : order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal : add a story that isn't needed. : Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or : pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some : of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising, : but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read : historically, I wonder. I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.) Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened" the criteria for such categorization? If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories that defy how the world works. (And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who accept miracles.) In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures. Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid. IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh and av deis din derelict in his duty? The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because they're only ahistoric. I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from within the midrashic-story system. So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..." While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise" far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:54:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty. Rabbi Akiva lived at the > time of the Bar Kochva revolt. R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later. The > vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the > destruction of Bayit Sheni. While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 17:20:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, > Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was > Nasi in Yavneh)" And how many of those feature in any machlokos? Hillel & Shammai had only three, beside the long-running one on smicha. > These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel & Shammai do. Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to dispute? > Hillel and Shammai were certainly > well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their > students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo ra'u". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 18:19:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:19:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 07:02:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? Message-ID: <1505224922640.65779@stevens.edu> Please see the video at http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb produced by the Harabonim of Queens YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 20:16:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:16:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? In-Reply-To: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe > the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were > gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". > Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of > machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the > teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the > lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on! As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one). Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF. * HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim, 1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130 concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora. (All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 08:49:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? Message-ID: <1505317742192.42683@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40) writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until thirteen and a half minutes after sunset. The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 11:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (hankman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:11:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Message-ID: R. Zvi Lampel wrote: ?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help?? CM responds: Yup, I imagine that would be the concordance in his head! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 06:28:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= Message-ID: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 08:54:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:54:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170914155423.GD26813@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av : even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but... Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 09:44:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach In-Reply-To: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> References: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170914164428.GA4289@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is : applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, : might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?.. I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981) count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei. So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod. While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such "tolados". : Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own : law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven? I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of authority is granted. There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of a Noachide court under dinim: The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society. This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10) and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid (Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim 10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim" includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law needs to look like. But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the other 6. This is shitas haRambam (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land. See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 11:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> Message-ID: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min : ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger : (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin was a meat thing in particular. But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the brain. (* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're the consensus, by sheer number.) If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration. It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort to obtain the treif milk. R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:00:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> References: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4636649d-ed8e-bc04-6e80-c299a962507c@sero.name> On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash > et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case > to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. > Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held > like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" > understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, > not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the > brain. You have the PC and CS reversed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1505420943267.43919@stevens.edu> Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170914201537.GB11862@aishdas.org> First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to R Akiva Miller's second post first. On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote: : As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that : takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real : halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the : lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, : but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that : does not apply to Chanukah. I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT) is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function of neis Shabbos. IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation" as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her feel less that she is shouldering the list alone. Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote: : Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. : The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was : "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a : level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why : this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, : because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs : of the home." Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..." But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah kavsah neiro shel olam connection.) The MB too... So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU cites, "only" the nesei keilim. : In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting : the lights is part of that! Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where women can consistently be homemakers..." The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way. BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't know what to make of that. Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular social state? This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book "Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law" https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing, and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes. One paragraph: Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways. The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point: according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations in a range of mitzvot! Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't know): Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal family unit. RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the thesis: Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical, and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single sex. He did not do so. ... Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family, we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids. So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed social structure. RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers, among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular kinds of social structure over others. ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with a husband and wife at the core. ... Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for, community units that comprise family units which comprise individual units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis. A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is so much to say about it. Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield: Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are -- and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 14:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170914210406.GB10180@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote: : There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): : 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the : Tannaim... According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im. According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion) it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over a dechuyah rule). So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and both talmuds. : 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and : Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? To sum up: 1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah. : Why did they let Machlokes fester? ... 2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted, or cannot be taken at face value. a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from the lishkas hagazis. Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post: b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should. And I suggested: c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that distinguishes between them. And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote: : > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won : > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority : > and passed their 18 gezeros. : That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed : group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It : sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either mean - number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5) - number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT sham) So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that would explain why they too got counted. But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 09:28:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:28:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> >From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss : Question: If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition. Answer: He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like an average person, and certainly not Maaser. If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur cholim, miqvah, shuls... I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of the rest of the community. Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. (I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to help, I would appreciate it.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 11:15:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? --------------------- From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 12:22:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170915192219.GD11421@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - : cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools (and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave them some guidelines for defining what that is. But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the complexity of their definition. And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/ poseiq would tell you to compute your share? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 17 07:08:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is the Customer Always Right? Message-ID: <95.E3.03036.1028EB95@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 15:19:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:19:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha > B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to > have a minyan? I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, as compared to wwithout a minyan. I thought that we say it Motzaei Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few days are left and we fear running out of time. Both reasons are even more relevant on Motzaei Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 21:39:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a25b83f-173e-6448-5511-011515a4e304@sero.name> On 18/09/17 18:19, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, > as compared to wwithout a minyan. Without a minyan one can't say the kaddish. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 01:56:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tuitiion Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: RMB wrote: > Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: > Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, > is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW > described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the > differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other > urgent causes? > I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one > may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if > promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are > currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: It is meritorious to support Torah scholars, and you may dedicate a portion of your [maaser kesafim] funds even to support one's own son studying Torah. You may likewise use a portion of these funds to pay for the your adult children's yeshiva gedola, midrasha and college tuition, but you should not draw on these funds for paying tuition while in elementary or high school. [1] However, someone lives a modest lifestyle and still cannot otherwise make ends meet, may draw on these funds even to pay for a portion of his minor children's Jewish day school tuition. [2] Someone who benefits from a scholarship at an institution of Jewish education should prioritize that institution when giving charity, over other institutions. [3] 1: Chatam Sofer YD 249 2: Igrot Moshe YD2 ?113, but Aruch haShulchan YD 249:7 disagrees 3: Oral ruling by Rav Hershel Schachter It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka. I once sent my kids to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we are discussing, since it is a poor community). -- Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 11:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral Message-ID: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> An Aish article notes: >The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >within them. There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first appear in Jewish thought?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 13:33:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom Message-ID: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> The most commonly cited reason that we say "oseh hashalom" rather than "oseh shalom" in kaddish during the 10 days, is that the gematria of hashalom is equivalent to the gematria of Safriel, the malach that "writes" us into the Book. (I just recently read somewhere else: "Hagahos Mordechai [Miseches Rosh Hashanah 720 he states as follows: Safiriel is the Gematria of Oseh and Oseh is the Gematria of Hashalom. Alternatively this hints to the kindness of Hashem that swerves the judgment to merit in a case that the sins and merits are equal, and the verse states "Maaseh Hatzedaka Shalom"." (I don't understand this second reason: the "sholom" in that last phrase doesn't have a "hey") I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their other reasons I am missing?) KvCT! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their > other reasons I am missing?) Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter counts. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:40:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <6d0c6039-0428-0174-88ec-0724ad47e1a5@sero.name> On 19/09/17 14:48, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >> forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >> Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >> imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >> within them. I assume this is in the context of a discussion of the way people in ancient times used to see time as cyclical rather than as progressing, as we moderns see it. > I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. > > Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first > appear in Jewish thought?) The idea that specific days have fixed properties that repeat every time they come around is found everywhere in Chazal. They took it completely for granted, and of course it fits into the cyclical way the ancients saw all of time. But it's clear from the Torah that they *didn't* see time as cyclical. So the author of this article uses the spiral to explain how they did see it. But it's impossible to discuss this entire subject without the insight that there are different ways to see time, and without the two models -- cyclical and progressive -- to contrast, and to propose syntheses as this author does. Chazal did not have the historical perspective to be aware of this whole dichotomy. I suspect they were unaware that the nochrim of their era didn't see time as they did, and that the nochrim were just as unaware that Jews didn't see time as *they* did. Only looking back from 2000 years later is this difference apparent, and we can discuss how the Torah's progressive view of history can be reconciled with dates repeating themselves, by using the spiral analogy. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 08:45:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170925154550.GC23052@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important : >as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, : >are their other reasons I am missing?) : Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the : first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter : counts. At least both the Chassidei Ashkenaz and the Tur held it was. There is no evidence of this line of thought any closer to the actual start of Nusach Ashkenaz. And a number of the Tur's word counts are dependent on flavor of Nusach Ashkenaz. Could well be that the significance is itself part of a bigger machloqes. They could also be taken as post-facto kavvanos, a way keep in mind a pasuq that colors what we mean by the baqashah, rather than causitive. It is interesting to me that the violation of word count gematrios in Nusach Ashkenaz is largely among Chassidim, who we culturally associate as the community most likely to deal in such remez. Except perhaps for Chida and Ben Ish Hai influenced Sepharadim, but they didn't have a nusach that made such claims to ask why they would choose to leave it. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 05:38:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:38:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? Message-ID: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, and what HKB"H wants from us: Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot switch its use). GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 09:30:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 25/09/17 08:38, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, > and what HKB?H wants from us: > Rama Y?D 249:13 (my free translation) ? In any event one shouldn?t > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won?t he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz ? so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 10:19:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:19:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: We change "min kol" to "mikol" to make up for the addition of the extra "l'eila".? So that the word count stays the same.? So yes, we see this kind of thing everywhere, including kaddish. Lisa On 9/19/2017 11:33 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria.? Do we see that elsewhere?? (Or, are > their other reasons I am missing?) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- I leave it to the readers to project if people put a name on as a form of bragging (separate question - is it intent or what observer's perceive that counts?) It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the item is not in danger of being switched in use? GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:29:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170925182902.GA16613@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:37PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An Aish article notes: :> The Jewish model of time is a spiral... : There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it : was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. : The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time : (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. : I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. There is no source, but it's a pretty compelling conclusion given Chazal's description of mo'eid, or chayav kol adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo repeating yetzi'as Mitzrayim annually OT1H, and yet OTOH speaking of history as inexorably running from Adam to the messianic era (and beyond). We might be the first generation consciously aware enough of the issue to think about our use of both language that implies circular time and that of linear time to want to make a synthesis "helical time". (True YU alumni would insist there is no helical time. Meaning comes from the tension of the dialectic; there is no syntheis. ) I don't question the value of lomdus, even though it is utilizing patterns in halakhah or halachic dialectic that weren't made explicit. Yes, that creates a change of error, but when the explanation is strong enough, do we reject the whole concept because the Rambam never spoke about gavra vs cheftza on topics other than oaths? Think how much hashkafah, or specifically Qabbalah, is drawn from just this kind of finding a theory to explain existing statements. This helical time is typical. So, is it a modern chiddush? That isn't a boolean question... to the extent you find this intepretation muchrach, it's inherent in what came bafore. And the the extent you don't, v.v. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:58:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>> Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't :>> glorify oneself with the charity he gives... :> Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their :> donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item :> donated... ... : It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the : item is not in danger of being switched in use? I am personally bothered when there is so much text on the paroches or cloth on the bimah (term?) that it detracts from the aesthetics. I am also bothered when more space is spent naming the donors than naming and perhaps lauding the person in whose memory the donation was given. That said... I think the consensus is that things have fallen to the point that we have two offsetting values that outweigh this ill: 1- When the choice is between collecting multiples more money with giving out honors vs operating on a shoestring and having to cut corners by only taking more purely motivated donations, the extra tzedaqah given is a mitzvah that outweights the alternative. 2- Even someone who has pure motives and wants to give quietly is living in a society that will respond positively if his donation is made public and influences the community. Peer pressure isn't just for teenagers. I think it's parallel to choosing chalitzah as a first choice. It's clear from the pasuq and the content of the ritual that chalitzah is something that in the ideal no one should be encouraged to choose. But as Abba Shaul noted, we don't live in that ideal world, and what was second-rate has become (centuries later) mandatory practice. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 12:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170925190253.GE16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, : as compared to without a minyan... We make a point of demonstrating communal unity in the middle. "Shalom Aleikhem!" Not speaking halachically, as you aren't obligated to greet 9 men, or even really greet anyone. But still... Aside from Zev's example of getting one more qaddish, which is a nice but incidental advantage, it seems to me that QL itself leans toward being a tzibur thing. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:34:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Ben On 9/19/2017 12:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I thought that we say it Motzaei > Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few > days are left and we fear running out of time. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:09:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:09:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <761520c3-faea-cd38-8ba8-ee24f675b3b7@sero.name> On 25/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > cloth on the bimah (term?) mappah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 03:39:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <046338f8-991f-2216-c55d-6002821d57a1@sero.name> On 26/09/17 01:34, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of > Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a > shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Not everyone does that, in fact some don't even say it on Shabbat, and wait until Shavuot. So zrizin doesn't necessarily override avelut. Also many don't do kidush levana until after 7 days from the molad, by which time we're into the deeper avelut. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 06:45:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170926134541.GB23180@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:34:30AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the : 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? ... I am confused. Isn't the implication simply that all else being equal, do it earlier because zerizin, but aveilus is sufficient for not considering all else equal? Why does zerizus being applicable mean that it is necessarily the most urgent halachic principle coming into play? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 11:54:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Over on Areivim, we were yet again discussing the cRc's position that one should not buy coffee from a full Starbucks store that sells food. Here's my take, cut-n-pasted from what I posted there. ... There is a lot of ham and bacon at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=hot-breakfast and poultry at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=sandwiches-panini-and-wraps The cRc's statement refers to these in particular . It also questions your assumption of the ubiquitous use of soap: Chicago Rabbinical Council Guide to Starbucks Beverages May 2013 / June 2015 ... As said, Starbucks shops serve many kosher and non-kosher items, with the most serious non-kosher item being hot meat sandwiches. The standard daily clean-up at Starbucks includes a hot wash of all utensils and some parts of that washing are done without soap. This clean up process significantly challenges the kosher status of the otherwise kosher products and each product must be judged by a competent halachic authority. The cRc has made available their detailed review and analysis of this topic in the spring 2011 edition of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and that article can be found below. Click here to read this article. The good news is that there are many Starbucks locations that do not serve hot meat sandwiches. These are generally the Starbucks kiosks which can be defined as a Starbucks location, usually found in a mall, retail store, a bus or train station or airport, that does not sell hot sandwiches. The cRc is comfortable recommending any drink made from kosher ingredients (even though some others use ingredients that may not be kosher). This list is accurate at this time for stores in the United States based on two and a half years of extensive research and consultation with the cRc's Av Beth Din, Rav Schwartz, shlit"a.... Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. And that is consistent with the lenient majority. We're trying to understand the cRc's ruling. There is no derabbanan here[, to justify another poster's invocation of safeiq derabbanan]. They're saying that the odds of your cup being washed without soap with a plate that held hot bacon or tereifah chicken is high enough that one needs to avoid taking that risk. But that's real nosein ta'am of an issur de'oraisa. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:56pm +0300 someone wrote to Areivim, on a discussion of the cRc's ruling against : I don't drink coffee at all, so I'm not a frequent Starbucks customer, but : I suspect that a sandwich like : https://www.starbucks.com/menu/food/sandwiches-panini-and-wraps/chicken-blt-salad-sandwich?foodZone=9999 : is probably at least 1/60th chicken or bacon. The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 13:17:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women Message-ID: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the topic of leadership/ordination for women. (I am indebted to some of those here who helped sharpen arguments :-) ). I think I have adequately illustrated that their position is based on wrong/unproven facts, poor logic, fuzzy definitions, strained arguments, and inconsistent application of the rules. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need to have a comprehensive and systematic approach to gender and public/leadership. I am happy to respond to questions, critiques and criticisms. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/sneak-peek-an-analysis-of-the-ban-on-women-rabbis/ Noam Stadlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 12:38:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926193827.GA27624@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:56:59AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: :> I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one :> may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if :> promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are :> currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. : From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: ... : It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as : tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his : minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But : what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka.... Agreed, but I don't see how it's obvious. Say your handyman is a pious guy, and rather than not doing business with people who can't afford his full rate, he charges them less for labor. Also, Rn Handyman isn't so willing to take the full hit on total income. Since this is a nice guy, we can assume that if more of the town were wealthier, his usual rate for someone who can beqoshi stretch the budget would be lower. Is the difference in salary tzedaqah? Does it make a difference if Reb Handyman actuall did this accounting and maybe even announced the resulting differential? Or is a baal melakhah's pay rate money owed, and such cheshbonos should be irrelevent. This imaginary scenario was designed to be both parallel and to my mind a somewhat wild line of reasoning. 1- Once you say that any tuition paid beyond the cost for your child is indeed tzedaqah, one needs a pesaq about how to apportion group costs to each individual student. The cost of the class divided by students, then the cost of school administation divided by the student body? Or maybe if a teacher is hired as soon as a class would otherwise grow beyond 25 students, I should be looking at the incremental cost of my child after the need to start the additional class was caused by someone else? And then -- could it depend on if I registered late, or before the number of classes was determined? And don't get me started on who is paying for resource room staff, where there are parallels to the above AND the reality that different kids would be using different amount of the service. So that my kid's 1 hour per week may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to get a math specialist, whereas another student's 5 hours of readin help is with a teacher they needed otherwise. Who pays what? 2- Once you make it tzedaqah, rather than considering tuition as debt, all could be fine-and-well halachically. And so it can come out of maaser kesafim. (All the more so because we aren't even sure maaser kesafim is a din.) And the schools like this, because it frees up maaser money for people who would otherwise need scholarship. But the line you're replying to was arguing that there is a downside for the school as well. As the teshuvah we started from notes -- debt is a higher priority than tzedaqah. You don't pay maaser out of money owed. And so, the school is marketing a din that may mean /less/ money for them than if the halakhah were that the full tuition should be treated as a debt. position for a sch chakhamim don't have to pay city defenses; maybe a good kid who doesn't see the principal should be considered : to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition : may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we : are discussing, since it is a poor community). GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 21:47:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> References: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4d52778a-5fe9-0dae-592c-ff6316a77877@sero.name> On 26/09/17 14:54, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health > department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough > regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. They wash in soapy water first, and then in clear water. The cRc's position is that soapy water, which is hotter than yad soledes bo but cooler than kashering temp, prevents the transmission of treife taam from one keli to another when they are washed together, but it does *not* render the treife keli permanently pagum. The treife keli comes out just as treif as it was, so when it's then put into *clean* hot water together with the kosher keli the treife taam transfers. > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical substance at all, so it's not surprising that even if it permeates the keli's entire structure, which we assume it does, it doesn't add to its mass. This is also why the bracha on coffee is shehakol, not ha'etz, because there is no substance of the coffee bean in the final product; only taam, smell, and colour are transferred in the brewing, all of which are assumed to have zero mass. Which makes the existence of instant coffee a conundrum, and casts doubt on the practise of saying shehakol also on coffee made from instant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Tabory via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom Message-ID: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. Yosef Tabory From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 08:26:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170927152646.GD1177@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote: : Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of : the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel : minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)... Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah. I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian "Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon, they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation -- 10 yemei teshuvah. To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh. : Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, : the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not : wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought : that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh : Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh) had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom" in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify abandoning it. ----- While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef, let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in "Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi yontef nusach for the joke to work. Why are so many Jews overweight? Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we sing: Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein! Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8), apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates! GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:30:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:30:33 +0000 Subject: “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux Message-ID: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> >From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")? A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart" (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13). IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me) GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:29:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:29:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds Message-ID: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense that A gets more credit(schar) than B? My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish, etc.) Thoughts? GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 19:34:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom Message-ID: . Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz. I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. Specifically: Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912 Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928 Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940 (Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.) Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949 Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950 Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960 The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960 Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982 There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this machlokes. However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different, and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America (who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 18:20:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical > substance at all, ... I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical substance? I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* be removed by cleaning. Gmar chasima tova to all, Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:21:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? Message-ID: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Please see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v I personally have always used money for Kapporas was. This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly mistreated before they are used for Kapporas. IIRC a few years ago it was discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water or food and died. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:31:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had to be discarded. After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost everywhere with the kapporos chickens. Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim: it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here. I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko. But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:48:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical >> substance at all, ... > > I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence > that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical > substance? I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a modern person to wrap ones head around. > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must > be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* > be removed by cleaning. If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing left to kasher! All you've done is clean the surface. There was never a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on the surface. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:54:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7096234e-1e3d-84c3-bb8b-dcfebecbb79f@starways.net> On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 10:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170928170022.GC32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence :> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical :> substance? : I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for : a modern person to wrap ones head around. I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT) about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion: : On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got :> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is :> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean :> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the :> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... : If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get : it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I : always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance : absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel : possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we understand an experience intellectually. This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs, etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience. My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer, than on the physics of the objects being utilized. Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance (like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance" (as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the past agreed with. If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked: > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the whole pot is indeed tainted. I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 12:03:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v ... : This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly : mistreated before they are used for Kapporas... That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens, not the minhag. This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag. The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag. In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it? Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori. (It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.) And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and "ve'ein leshanos". Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa") or not been doing kapparos at all. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 11:52:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588ee3662a16491c9404fcc82bfe2e8a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom. Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 28 22:03:26 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them > a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate object such as money. You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. > Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 29 13:15:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the : >Maharil)... : : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather from his own money. (Shelah) : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a meilitz yosher before going into din. I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the pidyon of the person. :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree.... Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag vasiqin"? GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht : Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a : life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it : with an inanimate object such as money. : : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but : the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after : kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or : else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The : Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, : since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. : : : >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- : >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were : doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand : it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. : : -- : Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, : zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all : _______________________________________________ : Avodah mailing list : Avodah at lists.aishdas.org : http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org : GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From zev at sero.name Fri Sep 29 13:33:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > : >Maharil)... > : > : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it > : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... > > Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather > from his own money. (Shelah) As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... > > Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is > inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer > to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a > meilitz yosher before going into din. Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka. Plus, kaporos is not done right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend doing it as much as a few days earlier). > I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have > primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation? > I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the > pidyon of the person. The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. > :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. > > : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means > : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its > : pedigree.... > > Source? It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". > He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously > suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves > pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin > to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition > fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag > vasiqin"? The same thing. Although don't know who gave this heter someone must have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we don't understand it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:05:15 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog Message-ID: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one? From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:14:07 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to another book which I don't own). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Sep 30 13:35:00 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: If I can mix actuality with the idea below: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. Ben On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the > Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after > kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or > else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer > Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since > it's less embarrassing to the recipient. From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:22:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c1fa29c-aa4b-122a-0dce-bfe50d5e5e32@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 > minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of > Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). > > What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to > another book which I don't own). Shulchan aruch OC 649. See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like the Rambam. Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being covered in more red berries than leaves, etc. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 19:18:58 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov Message-ID: . A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group: > The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when > Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is > known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is > a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one > is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in > for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving > lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed > and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good > both physically and spiritually! When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos. My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov? I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos. Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years, I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic - allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running, Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote "Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".) So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Looking forward to your responses. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sat Sep 30 18:03:12 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171001010312.GA17048@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". : > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will : > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give : > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather : > from his own money. (Shelah) : : As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do : kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. : Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos : is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give : tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. : >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is : >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer : >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a : >meilitz yosher before going into din. : : Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama : and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all : of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) As you yourself write, epmashsis added: : The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, : instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can : buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. : >: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : >: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : >: pedigree.... : > : >Source? : : It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a : plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find "vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim. Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless. The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the chain was already broken for a couple of generations. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 21:05:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3040f2fc-ea44-2eaf-3016-6c25f3b8b9c6@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and > sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the > mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only > applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar one may buy the cheaper one. The second opinion is that even if both are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a third more for the better one. This rule is not just for esrog, it's in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b). > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you can)? If > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a > hiddur to buy one? It means neither one. You left out a word. The Mechaber's language is "*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish". One should buy the better one, *if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior one. If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it. But there's certainly no restriction if you want to. The gemara says "Up to a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:25:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If I can mix actuality with the idea below: > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 > > What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with > tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or > honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that > affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in > Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck. There's nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-) Especially on Erev Yom Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah. The scandal is that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah. If they shechted them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared. [Email #2] On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". >:> And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will >:> be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give >:> maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather >:> from his own money. (Shelah) >: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do >: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. >: Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos >: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give >: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person > to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. We clearly have switched topics. There is no other way to read the Rama. The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka. The Rama says that we should not change this minhag. Then he says how it should be done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white. *Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the person. and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam". It's a pidyon just like pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the poor, we buy it back from tzedaka. >:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is >:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer >:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a >:> meilitz yosher before going into din. >: Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama >: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all >: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... > The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor > person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly. The minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them money. On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable. See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned earlier. So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery. See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to the poor. (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.) > (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about > a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes > no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) Where did you get this idea? There's nothing about it in the source we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen. The pasuk from Iyov is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" that we will shecht instead of this "gever". It has nothing to do with doing a mitzvah. Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov. > As you yourself write, epmashsis added: >: The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, >: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can >: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this. Giving it to the poor is a separate minhag. BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries or something, but you think it's good enough for them. This isn't a logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money prevents it. On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy day). >:>: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means >:>: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its >:>: pedigree.... This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an old minhag". But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised what it was. "Vosik" does not mean old. You're confusing it with "`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; strong; distinguished". "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a distinguished scholar". "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee distinguished among the nations". "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the conscientiously pious men of former days." So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn because they can't sleep anyway:-) [Email #3] PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really. https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7 defines it in leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced". So even when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time itself but to the experience gained over that time. The etymology is not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy". It does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, but of experience. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 1 19:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" Message-ID: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> 1) Balaam advocates the destruction of an entire people. He is a hired gun (or mouth) who has exploited his prophetic gift and is willing to help implement a genocide for the right price. This type of individual has separated himself from all people, hence, this position of his is coded in his very name Balaam, "B'li Am," "without a people." 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is called an "aton.? Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of the physical. But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey, therefore his donkey speaks to him -- the inference being that Balaam has descended to an animalistic level, and that is the symbolism of the donkey talking to him. I see it as "chamor" in the sense of "heavy" referring to Abraham, since he carries so much more weight than Balaam. On the other hand, Balaam's donkey is called ?aton,? very similar to the word "etnan" which means a "harlot's pay? ? quitet fascinating since Balaam prostituted himself with the intention of fulfilling Balak's request. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.? Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 2 08:25:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: RMB wrote: > IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than > Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ > that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what > the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions > in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) > believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in > 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. Indeed, I recall, upon dealing with those various shittos while in RIETS, particularly as covered by Rav Charlop in a shiur of his, that Satmar and Rav Kook are a lot closer to each other than to Agudah & Rav Soloveitchik. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 09:14:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:14:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?What_is_the_correct_way_to_pronounce_Hashem?= =?cp1255?q?=92s_name_in_Shmoneh_Esrei_and_other_brachos=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170703161444.GC18193@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Halacha Yomis ... : A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D ... "We have : a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, : that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY : -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf : Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." First, we know from seifer Shoferim that different shevatim had different accents, such that Shevet Ephraim (like Litvaks of a much later date) pronounced as right-dotted shin the same as a sin or samekh. So how can we talk about a single accent even at Har Sinai? I therefore assume RSZE Hy"d was saying that you need to use your mesorah's patach-cholam-qamatz, as he spells out in the rephrasing. And that these vowels are what's misinai. Which is also problematic, as the division of various possible vowel alophones into specific phonemes probably didn't happen until Teverya. This next paragraph may make your eyes glaze over. It justifies the previous one, but feel free to skip it if it bores you and move on to the next point: Which explains why Bavel's nequdos don't line up one-to-one with the ones we use today -- one symbol for segol and patach and one symbol for qamatz qatan and cholam with a different one for. And the prior Israeli system fits Sepharadi pronounciation, fewer symbols showing less differentiation, but it could simply be less precise. The way we still have one symbol for qamatz qatan and qamatz gadol, or sheva na and sheva nach. (Unless you are using a "simanim" or other non-standard printing. Unicode actually supports this differentiation, if you find a font and a text file that distinguishes.) One symbol does not mean one phoneme. But it hints at how the locals viewer the vowels. Like Rashi, who echoes the Babylonian single segol-patach system when he refers to a segol as a patach qatan. (If you are still reading this paragraph, you'd probably enjoy our mesorah email list. Ask me to sign you up!) R Rallis Weisenthal (CC-ed), in his siddur in memory of Qh"Q Bad Homburg pg LXV (on opensiddur.org), lists traditional Ashkneazi cholam sounds, claiming that they're all dipthongs. ("Claiming", because I am not sure he's right on one of them): Poland, Austria-Hungary komatz chirik O^i [t]oy Lithuania, Russia segol chirik Ae^i [p]ay Northern Germany, Holland patach shuruk A^u [h]ow Southern Germany, Switzerland, France, Latvia, England, North America komatz shuruk O^u [g]o I think the Lithuanian cholam was originally more like /oe/ a sound halfway between /o/ and a tzeirei. (And the /e/ of the tzeirei isn't quite the same as a segol.) What he is describing reflects later Polish influence, a compromise position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio could help here. And I think the British cholam actually is rounder than a qamatz, like a long /O/ in English. And like a long /O/, there is a tendency to add a rounding /w/ (eg "blow"), but it's not always there. Maybe a dipthong of qamatz qatan and a /w/, which is shitas haGra. Not entirely different than what RRW writes, but also not quite as implied from his description. Anyway, he has a continuing discussion by R' Y Kramer againt using a /y/ or /i/ sound to round a cholam. Go to the above link. It's too long and two bi-lingual for me to cut-n-paste here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 10:03:51PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. : However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is : called an "aton." : Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) : suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of : the physical. : But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey... Thus the root "aleph-tav", meaning together with (eg "ito bateivah"). The Gra makes this point about riding a chamor being mastery of one's chomer vs being together with one's ason. I bet RAK cites him. He lurks here, but I took the liberty of CC-ing RAK so as to get his attention. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 11:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The Maharal -- preceded the Gra on this point. Here is a paragraph from the new edition of Explorations (anticipated 20th anniversary edition) The denouement of history is in our hands. The Mashiach will be revealed in clouds of glory if we are worthy; if we are unworthy, our redemption will be of a far less exalted nature. If we are deserving, the clouds will be revealed sooner; if not, the redemption will take longer, and the process will be slow and plodding -- but the redemption will surely come. And just as the clouds are an image that is laden with meaning, representing man's ability to recognize and connect to the metaphysical plane, so, too, the image of the Messiah as a poor man riding on his donkey is no mere literary device: According to mystical sources, this metaphor holds the key to the redemption itself: The Zohar[1] explains that the role of Mashiach is to ride on the chamor, to subdue the physical.[2] ________________________________ [1] Zohar Bemidbar 207a ???? ??? ? ?? ??/? ????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?????"?. ?????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??????????, (????? ??) ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????"? ?????????. ?????? ???? ??????, ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? Those of the right are all merged in one called "donkey," and that is the donkey of which it is written, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" [Devarim 22:10]. That is also the donkey which the King Mashiach shall control. (Zohar, Bemidbar 207a) [2] See comments of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael chapter 40. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? - ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ?"? ???????? ???"? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????...??"? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. Can I repeat that second line on list? As for the first line... In general, email lists are failing. And yet, I don't want to move Avodah to a medium that encourages quick and short answers. If Avodah can't remain a place for in-depth discussion, I'll let it fade away. Mail-Jewish, the grand-daddy in the field, is coming out with a digest every two weeks or so. Although it's healthier than Avodah in terms of breadth of contributor pool. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 07:54:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it Message-ID: Recently, someone quoted a friend as saying something about how doing something for the wrong reason could constitute making the Mishna Burah into an Avodah Zara. Or something like that, I don't remember exactly, and I spent almost an hour trying to find the post, so that's why I can't quote it. Anyway, that person was wondering where the idea came from, and I found the following in the current issue of Jewish Action, also available online at https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ > Love of Torah does not always translate into love of > people ? or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk > caustically noted that increased religious observance is not > always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather > sometimes it is for the sake of ?worshipping the Shulchan Aruch.? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 11:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad Message-ID: Mishnah Megillah 4:9 teaches us: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad just like he blesses for the good." That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are talking about two different situations: If one has actually experienced something, then he must bless God for the good *OR* for the bad, whichever applies to the experience. There is no need to be inclusive, to mention that He is responsible for both. But when one speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when he must mention both the good and the bad. Or perhaps he can speak in generalities, but he must be careful not to suggest that God does *only* good things, to the exclusion of painful things: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that He *does* good. The things He does is described mostly in terms of the life He gives us, and the miracles that He does. (It is true that at one point it we thank Him for "tovosecha" - Your good things - but that is secondary, coming after "niflaosecha".) But then we turned to the fourth bracha of Birkas Hamazon, usually referred to as "Hatov v'haMaytiv" - "the One who is good, and does good" - from the central words. And then it continues: "Hu haytiv, hu maytiv, hu yaytiv lanu" - "He has done good, He does do good, and He will do good to us." And it closes with: "He will never deprive us of anything good." Where is the bad? In what way is this bracha not a violation of this mishna in Megilla? I concede that we've left out the Mishna's word "yizacher", but I don't think that is relevant. It appears to go directly against what the Gemara Megilla wrote, "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad." Is there any way to reconcile this gemara with this bracha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 13:44:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/07/17 14:54, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But when one > speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when > he must mention both the good and the bad. No. There is no need to mention all the things He does. Nor is there any need, when thanking Him for the good things He does, to include also the other things He does. What one may not do is declare that He is *to be thanked for* the good things He does, which implies He is *not* to be thanked for the other things he does. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:15:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered Message-ID: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:17:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:17:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 08:00:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170706150007.GD11698@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:17:31PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? : If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at : all minyanim? By whom? In an alternate reality, where I went into kelei qodesh instead of Wall Street programming jobs, there is (would have been?) a movement by now called Mevaqshei Tov veYosher, a/k/a Other-Focused Orthodoxy (OFO). The OFO flagship shul, Yishrei Leiv, hosts AishDas programming, of course, and at this point in alternate time, has a number of ve'adei mussar, shiurim in machashavah and workshops in tefillah. And, in line with OFO ideology, the rule for who can correct the baal qeri'ah is simple. The only people who can do so are (would be): 1- the gabbaim, 2- the rav, and 3- next week's baal qeri'ah . (Everyone else should go to the gabbaim quietly. Even at the expense of an occasional repeated pasuq. But also gabbaim would need to know diqduq and be able to field the simpler questions of which mistakes actually require correction.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 7 15:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:51:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION Message-ID: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> I sent an email to AVODAH where I mistakenly wrote that Rav Rivkas from Rabbeinu HaGra's family did not write Be'er Hagolah seeking to correct their misspelling. I wrote Bay.ur Hagolah. NEITHER is correct. He wrote B' er HaGolah. there is a shva under the Bais. I ws mistakenly thinking of ppl mistakenly saying Biur HaGra instead of Bay.ur Hagra. My mistake but as least I was thinking of the Gra. :) Reb Joel -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:51:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] the desire to be remembered Message-ID: <000001d2f823$a6448d60$f2cda820$@actcom.net.il> I would call this the need for recognition or the desire for kavod. I think it is a yetzer akin to the need for food or the desire for sex, the yetzer hara that is 'tov la'adam' as Bereshit Rabba puts it. Without the appetite for food, we would probably die of malnutrition; without the desire for sexual pleasure we would probably not want to procreate, and without the desire for kavod/recognition, we would probably be sociopaths. Our need for recognition (desire to be remembered, if you prefer) enables everything from toilet training to basic manners to our desire to contribute positively to society. If we did not need the approval of our parents and our peers, we would never get far enough along the path of social interaction to learn the rewarding nature of altruism and doing good for the sake of doing good. The process of socialization makes us human. Without our need for kavod/approval/recognition, it is hard to see how we could ever be educated. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 14:24:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:24:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India Message-ID: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties between Israel and India? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 19:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India In-Reply-To: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> References: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 08/07/17 17:24, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol > worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties > between Israel and India? I don't see why. There were treaties between our ancient kings and foreign rulers, pretty much all of whom served AZ. And of course there's the treaty between Yaacov & Lavan, which was explicitly backed by each party's deity/ies. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 08:24:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION In-Reply-To: <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> References: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59624AA6.4070406@schnurassociates.com> at least I know that there are some people actually reading what I send out, so TY 2 Rabbi Ralbag, shimon, Capt Dan and I think Mendy for responding. as for the rabbi's comment, I am pleased to see/read that he has a good sense of humor. I also learned how to spell email in Hebrew. My announced CORRECTION reminds me of the incident with Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he had a prober for being Rosh Hayeshiva for KOL TORAH. he was giving his shiur and someone corrected him. He stopped, thought about it and then said 'taeeti" figuring he blew his chance for getting the job. Afterwards they told him he was selected as RY and he supposedly said "but I blew it when I made that mistake." Just the opposite they said. We want someone who is able to admit he made a mistake. and with that story, I end this adventure. :) B'yidedus, Joel > Rav Ralbag > July 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM > ?? JOEL: > ???? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. > ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????-??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? > ????? !! > ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? - ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? > ??? !!!!??? > ??? ???? ????? ?????-????? ! > ????? ???? ???? ??? ?-?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ??????? ??? ????? > ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? - ?????, ???? ????? ???? > ???? !!! > ??????? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, > ???? ????? On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, mendy stern wrote: > So you want to be the Rosh Yeshiva? Only if the yeshiva davens nusach HaGra! Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 19:36:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? ---------------- My shul does not, except that the previous (now deceased Rav) was very against it, quoting the Tur about embarrassing the Baal Korei. That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 20:00:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:00:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <04ba01d2f928$bced1db0$36c75910$@gmail.com> R' JR: R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? ------------------------ Maslow's highest level in his Hierarchy of Needs (in its later permutations) is self-transcendence. I think that's what you're talking about. Here's some further on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcenden ce KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 02:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:45:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ================================ We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 09:24:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: ?Pinhas? has turned back Chamati, My wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11) So, Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous, difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamati (my wrath), the two outside letters chet and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters, mem and tav, read meit ? death. The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meit) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai). (Also, if you remove the "W" (for Wilderness) from "wrath" and replace it with "O" (for Obedience to God), the ?orath? can be rearranged to read Torah). Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live. Norman Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 11:58:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:37am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote to Areivim: : In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla : attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. : : My review and analysis of his failed approach to halacha is at : http://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/2017/7/7/the-not-so-orthodox-embrace-of-the-new-age-movement Although RBR posted to Areivim, I have an Avodah question. To quote: > To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For > example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has > been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to > the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved > as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies > it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, > or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it > globally. And the article discusses things like auras and other New Age ideas that if traced back to their origins one will find AZ. Is it all that different than the gemara's discussion or wearing a fox's tooth, where even a Rationalist like the Rambam (Shabbos 19:13) permits? Darkhei Emori are allowed for refu'ah (AZ 67a). Also Rashi (Chullin 77b "yeish") which according to the Panim Me'iros (1:36) includes any act to the body to be healed, but not "spooky action at a distance" (to quote Dr Einstein out of context). The Ran (Chullin ad loc) based on this Rashi explicitly permits any act we know works to heal, even if the workings are metaphysical. So is the difference only in which metaphysics I personally believe is real, and which is -- again, IMHO -- "woowoo"? And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? Are the laws of tereifos, which say put despite later findings about what an animal can live 12 months with, and what not, typical and precedent to say we go with Chazal's science, law is law, ignore the science? Or is it an exception because tereifos is halakhah leMoshe miSinai? I could see the standard of medical testing being decided by that question... Or... when it comes to which saqanos one is allowed to risk, the standard is normal and accepted. If people tend to climb trees to pick dates, it is mutar to get a job risking a fall from the top of a date-palm. Perhaps medicine too is defined by societal standards. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 12:27:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> References: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> Message-ID: And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 14:47:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170710214723.GA29132@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to : be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this : desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's : knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or : general society)? >From a recent blog post of mine, The Interpersonal Aspect of Parah Adumah : To illustrate how the Yerushalmi works, I enjoy taking a rather extreme case -- Berakhos 7:1, 51b: 1. Rav Huna said: Three who eat, this one by himself, this one by himself, and this one by himself, who then mix together should bentch with a mezuman. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three people, so that each ate with an obligation of zimun, even if from different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may make a zimun] when they ate together. 1. Rabbi Yonah [commented] on that which Rab Hunah [was just quoted as saying]: If [the kohein] dipped three hyssop sprigs [into the water made with the ashes of a parah adumah], this one by itself and this one by itself, and mixed them [the hyssops] together, one may sprinkle [the person needing taharah] with them. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three sprigs, so that each sprig was dipped as part of a group of three, even if different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may may be used for sprinkling parah adumah water] when they were dipped together. ... But what justifies this comparison? Is it really an expectation that all groups of three ought to be alike, regardless of the topic or the sort of group? In 1973, Ernest Becker wrote a book on philosophy and psychology titled "The Denial of Death". To give a thumbnail of his basic thesis, here are some snippets from [38]The Becker Foundation's "Theories" page: "[T]he basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death." ... The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of mortality. Since human beings have a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we can transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving the symbolic half. Becker describes human pursuit of "immortality projects" (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things. Still, for Becker, the only suitable source of meaning is transcendent, cosmic energy, divine purpose... Becker develops an idea that strikes most of us naturally. A central -- and perhaps THE central -- piece of our drives to contribute to community and to pursue a higher meaning is because these both overcome our own death. What I give my children outlives me in my children, grandchildren and beyond. What I contribute to the Jewish People is eternal because our nation is eternal. What I add to the development of humanity from Adam to the messiah outlives me in impacting the lives of generations to come. Fear of death, the need to embark on "immortality projects" can push us to expand our souls to beyond our mortal bodies. As Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to his substance and body. Above that one is someone who feels that his "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above that one is someone who can include in his "ani" all of his household and family.... And there are more levels in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the world and worlds are his "ani," and he himself is only one small limb in all of creation.... Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and [even] all of creation. The parah adumah is about overcoming death. A person who witnessed or experienced another's death is told to go through a ritual of changing tracks... He not only sees three sprigs from a scrubby bush, but also is thinking about joining together and how he can join with others. How to turn that conversation around from death and its reminder that we are merely physical beings toward death as a drive to go beyond that. We should not forget the most cryptic (choq-like) element of the parah adumah. ... [I]t requires that someone from the community reach out to them, even at their own expense. A true uniting of someone who might be thinking about death and man-as-mammal back into being a person contributing meaning to a larger community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 19:08:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on > chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better > standards for testing medicine? R' Joel Rich responded: > The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud > certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and > correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with > sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what > was known to them in their time." > > I'd appreciate specific examples I recently tried to learn a bit about Techum Shabbos. I was very surprised to find an entire siman (#399, with eleven se'ifim), giving details of exactly how the techum is to be measured. For example, the first se'if specifies that we must use a linen rope exactly 50 amos long. I was very surprised that the halacha would write such things, rather than simply presuming that we'd be smart enough to use whatever procedures are generally accepted as accurate. This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do it. The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective one, and tradition might rule. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 21:51:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> R' JR: We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. -------------------------------- I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 04:56:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fb6f6b1-b8cd-4075-09ea-8f770a1b66bd@zahav.net.il> If the person is reading from a full Bible, I will just listen. If I am not sure what book he's reading from, I'll read it to myself. IIRC the Mishna Bruria takes it as a given that the reason most shuls don't read from the klaf is because of the cost. Given today's incomes and fancy shuls, that shouldn't be a factor. And yet, it is the rare beit knesset where they read from a klaf. Ben On 7/11/2017 6:51 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? > > KT, > MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 15:50:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170711225048.GA29349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be : corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to : themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach : Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. : : Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? I will confirm. ... WRT shuls that aren't leining from kelaf. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 17:09:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 18:31:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170712013159.GA6359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, : who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a : surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, : they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do : it. Say I were to use a shorter rope. Well, then my measurments would include more dips and bumps. Whereas the 50 ammah rope might cut a direct path, a shorter rope would have two segments, in different angles. The measure would be longer than if you just cut the tangent. (And in fact, since most landscape is fractal, or nearly fractal until you get cown to molecules, if your "ruler" were smaller than a grain of sand, you could probably measure 50 amos along the wrinkles of the surface within an arm's reach of where you started.) So, the length of the rope will actually change the final measure. The navi implies that a shorter rope would be /too/ accurate, forcing a smaller measure than necessary. The weight of the chain means that sagging is more common, as lest if you aren't a surveyor. Or maybe the exact strechiness of linen - less than wool but more than metal, is also part of the actual measure. ... : The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might : agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better : procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring : distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular : procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective : science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective And to reframe where I was going above in these terms: There are times when Chazal are not trying to establish objective facts. (Or, to revive another old thread and my hangup about how halakhah defines metzi'us: ... to establish as objectively as possible those facts that could potentially enter our subjective experience.) In nidon didan, the question would be: In order for a treatment not to be derekh emori, and to be allowed on Shabbos where medicine for a choleh sh'ein bo saqanah would be allows, does it 1- have to be established as potentially effect to the best we can establish it? or 2- have to be accepted as potentially effective by chazaqah, which is the normal rule for justifying presumption in cases of doubt? How objetive are we being asked to be? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 12 19:06:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:06:59 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not Shechted? Meaning, if we have a creature that cannot be Shechted, but it is not a non-Kosher species, it might be a Neveilah but be Kosher to eat because there is no prohibition on eating Neveilah. The non-fully gestated cow sheep or goat, even if it is born in the normal manner, is not classified in Halacha as Bakar or Tzon. See Rashi Chulin 72b end of Mishneh. It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 03:33:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170713103351.GD14756@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:54:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ :> Love of Torah does not always translate into love of :> people -- or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk :> caustically noted that increased religious observance is not :> always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather :> sometimes it is for the sake of "worshipping the Shulchan Aruch." In R' Shlomo Wolbe, Alei Shur, vol II, "Frumkeit" , speaks of halachic obervant not for the sake of worshipping G-d, but speaks to why one would "worship the SA" if it isn't about G-d. A translation of the opening: > Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge to connect to the Creator. This > instinct is also found in animals. King David said, " The young lions roar > after their prey, and seek their food from G-d." (Psalms 104:21) "He gives > to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." (Psalms 147:9) > There is no need to understand these verses as [mere] figures of > speech -- animals have an instinctive sense that there exists One who > is concerned about their sustenance. This instinct [also] operates in > man -- on a higher level, of course. This natural frumkeit [instinct] > assists us in our service of G-d, and without this natural assistance > our service would would be extremely heavy upon us. However, frumkeit, > like any other instinctive urge that operates within man, is naturally > egotistical and self-centered. Accordingly, frumkeit drives a person to > do only that which is good for himself -- [in contrast, positive] actions > between man and his fellow man, as well as wholehearted actions between > man and G-d are not fueled by frumkeit. One who bases his service on it > alone remains egocentric. Even if he were to impose many stringencies > upon himself, he would not become a man of kindness, and he would not > reach [the level of] altruistic service. This is what necessitates that > we base our service specifically on intellect... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 16:31:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:00:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3abd2947-8a52-7433-c908-731af71507b2@sero.name> On 13/07/17 19:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr > Gouraud of the US. Google misinforms you. See, e.g., http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1412.htm#20 Or, lehavdil, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/1935454 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:37:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> R' MB: The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. --------------------------------- Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which was intended for facial hair. KT, MYG P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:11:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20170714151122.GB32531@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: : Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which : was intended for facial hair. It says that the poor "waxed" themselves with sid; and I am assumign that's not for skin as sensitive as cheeks. The rich used soles. Was this as an abrasive? Is fine flour even abrasive, or (as I seem to recall of today's grindings) -- soft? I think the rich used white makeup. And benos melakhim used shemen hamor, which we are told is acidic olive oil from underripe olives. While I do not doubt that benos melakhim tried this a means to reduce hair growth (the gemara says it also ma'adan habasar) I do doubt it worked. More recently (meaning, up to the mass production of depilatories) in Europe, cat's urine (for the ammonia, a strong base) or vinegar (an acid) were used. Both were believed to prevent or reduce hair growth, not remove what did gwo. But both failed double-blind testing. : P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use : wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. Many NA nations also tend to produce far less facial hair than most Jewish men to start with. I guess people can learn to get used to it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714152753.GA14639@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:59PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not : Shechted? In his Bar Mitzvah derashah, R' Chaim Brisker proved that neveilah and tereifah were aspects of the same underlying issur. Thus explaining (among other points I do not remember) why the Rambam holds that a neveilah and a tereifah can be metz'tarfos to a kezayis issur. Which would imply that WRT eating, all non-shechted meat is the same, and the issur is the lack of shechitah, not the tum'as neveilah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:47:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714154729.GB14639@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies : that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that : contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad : just like he blesses for the good." But that doesn't mean he must bless for the bad whenever he blesses for the good. Which is I think the chiluq that resolves the problems you raised. : That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say : one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one : experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On : *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is : irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Actually, even painful effects of the same occasion. Like the textbook case: Inheriting a large some of money requires making both Dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. : Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are : talking about two different situations... I think they are both talking about the good and tragic in the same situations. The first mishnah is prohibiting someone from even implying in a non-response context that when experiencing tragedy, one can skip Dayan ha'emes. : So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually : followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It : turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is : mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that : He *does* good.... Mah beinaihu? After all, all His "Middos" are about appearances and how the effects of his Action look to us. And actually, it pretty explicitly says in one point that it's about G-d appearing to us as Good -- "'haTov' shimkha". But as I opened, I didn't see Megillah as saying when we offer general thanks, it must be about both. Rather, he cannot be the kind of peson that skips thanking Him for those things He does "for our own good" (to paraphrase the stereotypical parent line). And thus, no problem in the 4th berakhah of bentching, either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:08:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: . R' Meir G Rabi asked: > It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just > like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. Why can't a horse be shechted? Is it missing the simanim? Of course, it would still be assur to eat the horse because it is a tamay species, but would that prevent one from doing a valid shechita? (I vaguely recall a case where a choleh sheyesh bo sakana was prescribed pork by his doctor, and the rav told him to shecht the chazir.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:02:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of him that is generally accepted as accurate? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:26:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure > I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone > reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only > the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go > 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? I have no idea what you mean by "litvishe" in this context. Do you mean Nusach Ashenaz, or Yeshivish, or In A Yeshiva, or something else? Anyway, in the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls and yeshivos that I have attended, virtually no one reads the haftara to himself, regardless of whether the Reader is reading from a klaf, a printed Tanach, or a Chumash. And those few who *do* read it to themselves are (unfortunately) loud enough to make it difficult to hear the Reader. In the Nusach Sefard shuls I've been to, there much more people reading to themselves. In fact, the Reader often doesn't even attempt to raise his voice so that others can hear him. But I've attended Nusach Sefard shuls rarely enough that I cannot venture a guess about the percentages. R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:23:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:23:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185632c6b5e74915992256cfd1207daf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ because I assumed that one was not being yotzeih with that reading but one's own Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 20:00:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:00:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes > are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of > the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an > educational thing"? I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. There is a chiyuv for a tzibur to read the Torah, although not on any individual to hear it. Even if ten men come into shul after krias hatorah they do not have to make it up, but if it was not read at all then the tzibur must make it up. But with the haftarah even if it was not read at all they need not make it up; this shows that there is no chiyuv, and therefore nothing that can be said not to have been fulfilled. Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:24:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? Or to be less pretencious: *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos on the other side? My wife is a righty and we use joint accounts. We are both listed as owners, and both of our names were on the mortgage. Even if I were supposed to hang my mezuzos on the left, are we shutefim in owning the house and therefore it should follow the rightward norm? I asked R' Gidon Rothstein, since it was his recent post on Torah Musings that launched my wondering, and he felt that it would go by the assumption that typical people coming in and out of the house are righty, and the owner's handedness shouldn't matter. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 08:25:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> References: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/07/17 22:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the > baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? > > Or to be less pretencious:*Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his > mezuzos on the other side? I wouldn't expect it, because I don't see any sevara to differentiate between houses based on who the owner is. Mezuzah is (lich'orah) a chovas cheftza, and the house is not left-handed! (See http://tinyurl.com/y9btfa9c , who cites R Chaim Brisker, Stencil #3) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/2017 6:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes >> are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of >> the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an >> educational thing"? > > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let > alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply that it's not just casual reading? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170716193026.GA17994@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that : imply that it's not just casual reading? to strengthen the point, that "we" includes Sepharadim, who don't make berakhos on minhagim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 19:16:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28c39ae9-0df9-89c0-ea06-a5e1b0b700a7@sero.name> On 16/07/17 15:20, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let >> alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. > > But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply > that it's not just casual reading? It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a missed haftara. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:42:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The problem with OU DE In-Reply-To: References: <1500310874499.90870@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170718214244.GA27595@aishdas.org> On 7/17/2017 7:03 PM, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: > Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a > Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel > bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is > that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not > simultaneously. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote: : Why not? Bateil is bateil. See Chullin 11b. Dagim that "alu" into a qe'ara of meat may be eaten with milchig. But going on a plate of meat -- what does that mean? Does it mean cooking? Ashkenazim hold, "'alu' -- aval lo nisbashlu". It's na"t bar na"t. The Tur, the YD 95, the BY's discussion of the Rivan and Tosafos, Rama YD s' 2, the Shakh s"q 3, and the AhS s' 5,11-15 assert as much halakhah lema'aseh. The way you treat bitul, there would be no such thing as nosein ta'am. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:24:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: <596E7C94.5030109@schnurassociates.com> Our K'vasikin minyan at the Young Israel of Ave k in Flatbush, K & East 29, (45 minutes before HaNetz on Shabbos and YT, 30 minutes on cholo shel moed and RH), reads from a klaf only al pi HaGra and only the baal k'riah reads while everyone else just listens and answers awmen (no BHUS) -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos > on the other side? Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it on the right side of the one who enters." And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 16:47:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:47:22 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: R Akiva Miller asked - why can a horse not be Shechted? A horse cannot be Shechted the same way that a G cannot perform Shechitah. Shechitah is not a mechanical action performed to meet certain criteria - Shechitah requires the right person, the right animal and the proper action. The Mishneh Chullin 72b asks a Q we would never ask, in fact it takes a very long time to actually read and make sense of the Mishneh, so counter intuitive is its premise. Why is it that a horse is a Neveilah even if it is Shechted whereas a cow which is Shechted is not a Neveilah in spite of it being a Tereifa? In our mind, the non-Kosher status of a Tereifa is a consequence of its ritual blemish which in no way affects the Shechitah; of course the Shechitah should prevent the animal becoming a Neveilah. But that is not how the Mishneh sees things - the Mishneh understands that the Tereifa status of the cow invalidates the Shechitah - it is, in the Mishneh's mind, equivalent to Shechting a horse. The Mishneh answers that Yesh BeMino Shechitah - meaning, although the animal itself ought to be deemed not Shechted, nevertheless as a species it has an association with Shechitah so the Shechitah will, in spite of being imperfect, prevent it becoming a Neveilah. And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. R Micha already noted that this touches upon the [in]famous bar-mitzvah Pshettel of R Chaim. But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The Gemara [Chullin 113] requires a special Ribbuy to teach that there is an Issur to cook premature born cow with milk Gedi LeRabbos Es HaShellil. Why? Why might we think it is not like a regular cow? The Tiferes YaAkov explains that such an animal has no Issur Cheilev, Chullin 75a, which is unsurprising considering that it is not a BeHeimah, so we may well have argued there is no Issur BBCh; KMLan that it is deemed to be Bassar for the Issur of BBCh. Now think about this - a Jew may not cook nor eat BBCh If a Yid however is about to eat Cheilev, which he may not cook with milk since it is deemed to be Bassar, we cannot warn him that he is transgressing the Issur of eating BBCh. Why? Because Ein Issur Chal Al Issur - once the Issur of Cheilev is already in place the later Issur of BBCh cannot take hold. Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Which seems to indicate that although it is a Neveilah, there is no Issur to eat a prematurely born cow. [To be sure we would need to verify that it has not entered its ninth month.] Hence my Q - Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:23:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, > let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps "minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes? > Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read > at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is that we're supposed to be doing? In a later post, he wrote: > It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's > takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that > one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias > hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this > from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it > must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a > missed haftara. I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read. Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:31:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> On 7/19/2017 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay > when the haftarah is read improperly? I don't think the question works. Consider: we have a chiyuv to daven shmoneh esrei. But there are different girsaot, so clearly, exact wording isn't critical to fulfilling the requirement. So we already see that there are different levels of chiyuvim, and that we are more medayek on exact wording on some levels than others. Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to something like haftara than there is for Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719101803.GA11560@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos :> on the other side? : Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it : on the right side of the one who enters." : And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And : there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Besheim the Mordechai. The Shakh) says this is true even if the lefty lives alone or the whole family is lefty. Because mezuzah is a chiyuv on the house, not like tefillin's chiyuv, which is on the guf. The Be'eir Heiteiv quotes the Shakh, adding "vekhein nohagim". The AhS (s' 5) gives multiple reasons: 1- A house is made for anyone who lives there, not this specific person. Which might be the same explanation, might not. Seems related to the fact that we do not take mezuzos down when the next owner is Jewish. 2- He contrasts to tefillin, where the pasuq uses the word "yadkha" and we darshen "yad keihah", whereas "beisekha" is used to darshen the din that it's direction from which one enters. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 05:46:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84213f099d8841fb92a75e4a8d758038@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 04:27:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's > surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" > when it comes to something like haftara than there is for > Torah. We seem to agree that it *IS* possible to read the haftarah IMproperly, in contrast to R' Zev Sero, who wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be > read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't > be invalid. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 06:52:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> On 18/07/17 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas > chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, But that is key. What is a chiyuv, or rather in Hebrew a chovah? As anyone who's read an Ivrit bank statement or balance sheet can tell you, it's a liability. "Lotzeis y'dei chovah", or "being yotzei", means discharging that liability. If there is no chovah then there is nothing from which to exit; one cannot speak of being yotzei something that is not a chiyuv. Now krias hatorah is not a chovah on any individual. If one missed leining one shabbos one needn't make it up. Even if there are 10 men who missed it, and therefore could make it up if they wanted to, they don't. But it is a chovah on the tzibbur; if for some reason an entire community was unable to read the Torah one week they must make it up the next week by reading two sedros. If they don't then their liability has not been discharged. When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". Of course if it is to be read it should be read correctly. *Anything* that is read should be read correctly; there is no virtue in reading carelessly, as if one's words are of no importance so it doesn't matter if one butchers them. But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, and since not reading it leaves no undischarged liability on the community therefore a bad reading doesn't do so either. > Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim > correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is > that we're supposed to be doing? Suppose my argument is incorrect, and there *is* some obligation which the community must discharge? How long a reading counts? We know that the gemara's mention of 21 pesukim is merely a recommendation, since we routinely disregard it. So how small *can* we make it? By analogy with krias hatorah we can say that fewer than three pesukim is not a reading at all. But maybe the analogy is inapt, and the takana is fulfilled by *any* reading from the nevi'im, even just one pasuk, or perhaps even a single phrase. After all the whole takanah is simply in memory of the time when krias hatorah was banned, so we read nevi'im instead; so perhaps even a very small reading is enough to evoke this memory. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, >>> This illustrates why I suggested avoiding words like "chiyuv". Is our goal to be in a status of "no worse than not having read it at all"? Surely not! If we would be satisfied with such, then why do we bother reading it? Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I don't understand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:36:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: <51a89e09-5077-e733-156f-9027c6f70dc9@sero.name> On 19/07/17 13:20, Akiva Miller wrote: > > Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting > someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or > whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems > to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I > don't understand. I'm saying that it's not *required*, and therefore it becomes a highly situational question of balancing the reader's sensitivity and the tircha detzibura against a desire to hear a haftara that doesn't grate on the nerves. There's no "I'm sorry but if we don't correct him we won't be yotzei". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 12:43:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719194312.GA13614@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. : I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of : him that is generally accepted as accurate? Mequbalim in Itali had a mesorah from the Rama miFano (late 16th - early 17th cent) that beards were only appropriate in EY. The Ramchal's lack of beard was mentioned in the charges against him when he was drummed out of Italy for teaching a very messianic Qabbalah too soon after Shabbeta Zvi. Someone once showed me a Chasam Sofer and a Chidah which refer to this practice. But I couldn't find it. Meanwhile, I found Gilyon Maharshah (R' Shelomo Eiger), at the end of YD 181, says that kamah gedolei hamequbalim, talmidei haAri, who cut their beards with scissors. So, scissors is no my default assumption, which means they probably had some visible stuble, if not enough to qualify as a "beard". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 02:09:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> References: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> Message-ID: <19840673-e64a-c7e5-41b9-92f64dd10daf@zahav.net.il> Ikkar ha-din, someone who can't properly enunciate Hebrew letters isn't allowed to pray from the amud, never mind read the Torah or Haftorah. I don't know if there is a need to correct someone who consistently makes mistakes but there is certainly no reason to allow him to read at all if he can't do it properly. As an aside: one of my rabbis said that RYBS didn't correct someone in class who made mistakes reading the Gemara text but if someone made a mistake with a pasuk in the Gemara, then the Rav let him have it. Ben On 7/19/2017 12:31 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot > more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to > something like haftara than there is for Torah. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:11:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then > I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant. I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe "tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also. Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors, including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria Message-ID: RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing about the nature of the original obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 24 11:53:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah Message-ID: <20170724185345.GA20358@aishdas.org> In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61) discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads "leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving her a real gett. The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because "almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other misspellings that have only one possible intent. I was wondering if this is too fanciful: Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah" could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often given given in CE. Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could cross the readers mind. Maybe? Or too creative? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 06:47:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 12:40:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 08:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721@aishdas.org> One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 09:50:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:36:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:34:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:31:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:13:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 12:10:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:21:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:49:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> References: <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 23:38:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and historical. He brings parts of the midrashim about Avraham Avinu's early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for any other reason than to understand the historical facts. Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 26 July 2017 08:49 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Washing Clothes During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 2. The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 3. Menorah on Arch of Titus (Micha Berger via Avodah) 4. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 5. Showering During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 6. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 7. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 8. Re: alma vs. almah (elazar teitz via Avodah) 9. Re: alma vs. almah (Micha Berger via Avodah) 10. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 11. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/494286688/Ohr-Somayach-Logo-150sq_bigger.jpg] Showering During the Nine Days?! by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz tinyurl.com YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger , avodah The General Discussion Area for Avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"; format="flowed" On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , llevine at stevens.edu, Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 From: elazar teitz via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: elazar teitz , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:13:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? Message-ID: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:14:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: From "Religion Within Reason" by Steven Cahn: "To have faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . To describe someone as a person of faith suggests that the individual is strong-willed, fearless, and unwavering." Question to all - what percentage of the frum world have no doubts? How many don't think about it at all? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 05:11:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering during the Nine days In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: see: Is it permissible to shower during the Nine Days? http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/is-it-permissible-to-shower-during-nine.html [or -mi] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:09:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? I am in the middle of R' Mordechai Torczyner's (CC-ed, please include him in replies) shiurim on ribis. http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&category=0,234696 In particular, shiurim no.s 3-5 are about refunds. It's under 2 hrs total, and if you know something of the sugya, 1.25x speed is doable. The first lines of the source sheet to those shiurim is "Lamah yeish chiyuv lehachzir ribis?" http://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=529082 If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:17:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih but not a tikkun for the lav) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 19:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Torczyner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim >> was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. >> If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would >> be subject to maaser kesafim. ... > Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is > something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih > but not a tikkun for the lav) > KT Hi R' Joel, Indeed, the Ritva's view is that ribbis, once paid, belongs to the creditor. The creditor is obligated to pay it back, but the money is his for purposes including Kiddushin. Other applications include whether the borrower has the power to forgive the repayment, and whether the creditor's heirs have a duty to repay. Kol tuv, Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 10:19:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:19:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c1d64f4e4564ec7b59a1d187400d9bd@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." ============================== I'd appreciate specific examples ============================== Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== I finally tracked down a copy of the book and read through it-I?d simply say that one must underline heavily the statement ?the best of what was known to them in their time? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:09:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> I read Rachel Levmore's "Decentralizing Religious Authority" at Teaser: Overview Orthodox Jewish life used to be a simpler matter for those who wanted to lead one. There was an unspoken system in place. One could approach the local rabbi with a question. If he didn't know, scholars higher up in the "hierarchy" could weigh in until the question reached the "gadol hador." Despite the plurality of approaches which always existed, there was a definitive address whose opinion would be accepted by all (or almost all). Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone. The present circumstances, which have witnessed a breakdown of authority in general society coupled with the absence of an uncontested authoritative Torah scholar, has led to absurd situations. Lacking agreed-upon "gedolim" today, a void exists... Without any proper halakhic discourse between various rabbis who deem themselves to be leaders (even if they lack followers)... And so on, with a pretty sociological take on the problem, and how it applies to controversy over the halachic prenup. As is usual for me, I'm intrigued by the theoretical meta-issue. Given that we've entered an era that there is a dirth of gedolim whose rulings are followed across multiple communities and eidot, is there a significant change to how halakhah is done? And I'm not saying this is entirely about nisqatnu hadoros, and how today's gedolim aren't like those of my youth. Some of it is also the effects of universal education, google, social-media cynicism and echo chamber, and the social trends that cause the popularity of such social media, and other societal changes that made people less likely to respect authority that isn't fully in agreement with what they decided the truth should be. Returning to snipping from the article: The Internet is not the forum for halakhic rows. Rabbinic tradition prescribes that halakhic disputes be conducted in depth, not superficially through "virtual" statements in cyberspace. Proper procedure dictates that rabbinic forums be held where differences of opinions can be [19]discussed face to face. If that is not possible, then [20]scholarly books are written or [21]rabbinic articles published. Alarmist attempts to create fear among innocent lay-people cannot be considered credible halakhic writing. And: [I]t is not for naught that the Mishnah directs us to choose who is our rabbi: [24]aseh lekha rav. It is your responsibility as a God-fearing Jew to determine which rabbi you will follow, according to your perception of his righteousness, scholarship, and derekh--philosophy of Jewish life. For a variety of reasons, it should be a rabbi who lives in the same community as you, not least since he would then be familiar with the challenges and facts of your life. In the United States, the Rabbinical Council of America has assembled an impressive body of rabbinic figures... Visible links ... 19. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-plea-from-Jerusalem-to-the-worlds-Orthodox-rabbis-483210 20. https://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%94.html?id=FpsqQwAACAAJ 24. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en My first stab at answering my own question is to wonder how long halakhah has been centralized around a few globally known gedolim. >From the geonim until the late 19th century, were there any? And even when there was a few posqim the whole world turned to (eg the geonim), how many question did they go to the gedolim for? Wouldn't the size of the world back then mean that most questions were far more local, with the mara de'asra having much more of a final say, with consensus being more of a regional thing? If halachic authority is being decentralized, is that something new, or a reversion to the norm, to how non-Sanhedrin (or as the Rambam would have it, post-talmudic) halakhah supposed to work? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:19:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:32:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170728203214.GA6178@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:38:18AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and : historical... But not the fantastical ones. Zev and I are arguing over two things: 1- What that includes. Zev believes that the inclusion of miracles does not make a medrash fantastical. And in fact to believe so be apiqursus. (Actually, Zev said the believer would be an apiqoreis; but the question whether every believer in apiqursus is necessarily an apiqoreis is far afield. So I'll still to this less controversial subset of his claim.) I disagree. The Rambam associates nissim with nevu'ah. Someone who lacks the yedi'ah to get one isn't going to be around to witness the other. Therefore, aggadic stories of miracles placed after Tanakh are fantastical. While Hashem could still in principle perform nissim, the Rambam believes He wouldn't. (Even when the story is told of a member of chazal and their level of ruach haqodesh.) 2- Is there a default? Zev understands that the default is to take a medrash historically, unless it must be ruled out. Again, I disagree. Medrashim are described as metaphors and riddles. The story and its historical content just isn't an issue. You can't assume anything about a medrash being historical or ahistorical qua medrash. A good bit of history and a good tall tale can be used equally well for teaching by metaphor. Implying, you would need outside reason to assume one or the other. Which is how the Rambam then says that if the story doesn't fit how the world works physically, metaphysicall or theologically -- ie what that translation I googled up called "fantastic" -- insisting its historical when it can't be is silly. So: : Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are : other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could : attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Be happy, no one in this conversation does. In my understanding of Zev's view, the Rambam says that any medrash that isn't impossible (and nissim are possible) should be assumed to be historical. In my view, wondering about the historicity of the story misses the whole point of medrash. But if the story does not fit the way Hashem runs the universe -- which according to the Rambam would include miracle stories happening after Malakhi, and many of the stories before -- assume it is ahistorical. : early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at : the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for : any other reason than to understand the historical facts. The Rambam there has outside reason to believe that medrashic description; it fit what the Nabatean Agriculture implied abot the birth of their religion. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:00:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 05:00:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: True, especially in the MO/DL world. The site had an article a few months ago about how the MO/DL simply aren't looking for gedolim or they define the role of a gadol in way that strips him of much of this supposed authority. Ben On 7/28/2017 10:19 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 14:51:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From ?Religion Within Reason? by Steven Cahn: ?To have > faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes > beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . It depends on what he means by "putting aside" one's doubts. If "putting aside" means that one does have doubts, but denies this fact, and acts as if his faith was complete, this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and in general, A Bad Thing. It is comparable to one who feigns humility; the odds of an eventual implosion are too high. Rather, one must be honest about his doubts or questions, and work on resolving them. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:12:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Math behind kulan chayav Message-ID: <20170730031250.GA2671@aishdas.org> "Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince." Lachlan J. Gunn, et al. Proceedings of The Royal Society A. To be published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00900 Magazine article on said paper (H/T R/Dr Josh Backon): https://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html This paper focuses on the case of identifying a criminal in a police line-up, archeological evidence, and crypography testing, but I'll just use the first as an example. Sometimes a line-up is like picking out an apple out of a group of bananas. But usually, there is measurable probability of error. Whether it's 48% for a criminal who runs through the crime scene or the probability of mistaking one's kidnapper, there is always some probability of error. Now, what's the probability that no one makes that error? If 10 people unanimously identify the same person, is it more likely that no one made the rror, or that there is a systemic bias leading people to select the same member of the line-up? This paper shows the math (and has plots for various probabilities of error). It takes far fewer people than you'd think before a unanimous finding becomes suspicious. And the paper even cites the din as precedent: However, this is not necessarily the case and more confirmations can surprisingly disimprove our confidence that the defendant has been correctly identified as the perpetrator. This type of possibility was recognised intuitively in ancient times. Under ancient Jewish law [13], one could not be unanimously convicted of a capital crime -- it was held that the absence of even one dissenting opinion among the judges indicated that there must remain some form of undiscovered exculpatory evidence. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 07:48:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20). I am attending a Bris on Tisha B'Av. May I say "Mazal Tov" to the baby's father? If I meet a sick person on Tisha B'Av, may I wish him a "Refuah Shleimah" (a full recovery)? Are these also prohibited forms of greeting? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l rules that Mazal Tov for a recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B'Av since it is considered a blessing and not a greeting (Dirshu M.B. Beiurim and Musofim 554:63 citing Halichos Shlomo Bein HaMitzorim Vol. 15 Orchos Halacha 30). However, if at all possible, one should wait for a different day to express this Mazal Tov (Chut Sheini Vol. 2 p. 327). Our minhag is to perform a Bris on Tisha B'Av after the Kinos are completed, even if it is before Chatzos (mid-day), because of Zerizim makdimim l'Mitzvos, those who serve Hashem with alacrity, do mitzvos as quickly as possible (Mechaber, Rama 559:7 and Mishna Berurah ibid s.k. 26). Rav Shlomo Zalman was of the opinion that one can certainly say "Mazal Tov" at the Bris even before Chatzos (ibid). Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l however rules that the Mazal Tov for the Bris should only be said after Chatzos (Dirshu M.B. ibid citing Shmaitza D'Moshe p. 431). Although "Sholom Aleichim" should not be said to an Avel (one who is in mourning), the Gesher HaChaim (21:67:7) permits wishing "Refuah Shleima" to an Avel who is ill, since this is considered a blessing and not a greeting. For the same reason it is permitted on Tisha B'Av to wish a "Refuah Shleima" to a person who is ill (Dirshu M.B. ibid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 10:24:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:48pm GMT, Professor L. Levine quoted today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis: : Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" : "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend : is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20)... I'm going to use this to share the quick thought in my most recent blog post: The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. Tzom qal! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 11:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 31/07/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say > "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the > table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time that day is a fast rather than a yomtov. Though we still hold out hope that that was last year. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time : that day is a fast rather than a yomtov... That was obviously my intent. HOWEVER... We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent ge'ulah. So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust. After all, a commemoration of the ge'ulah after Galus Edom would be far more compelling. (I mentioned this to someone after Maariv, and he suggested that since neither July or August line up with our months that well, maybe it'll be Tish'ah beLeo. I don't think it has the same commemorative quality.) -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 03:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Menuchah Schwat via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. > So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it > Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust... Tisha baChamishi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 06:27:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 8/1/2017 6:01 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used to be a day of mourning?" Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 08:40:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:27:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: :> We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent :> ge'ulah. ... : Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which : is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha : B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used : to be a day of mourning?" What's that "um" about? The month names being Babylonian is a given sitting behind the sentence you quote. It's an often referred to Y-mi, RH 1:2 (vilna 6a) "De'amar R' Chanina: shemos chadashim alu beyadam miBavel." Then going on to mention some pre-Bavli month names found in Tanakh - Risanim, Bul, Ziv, showing how that all changes in Nechemia and Esther. Sure, when talking about 9 beAv the fast, we may well teach them we called it 9 beAv. But, as I suggested in the OP, maybe after the ge'ulah from Galus Edom, we'll do the same with the Julian / Gregorian month names. It will, after all, be a much more momentus ge'ulah, being final and lasting. If Anshei Keneses haGedolah thought it was appropriate to commemorate one ge'ulah in this manner, perhaps we should assume al achas kamah vekamah the end of our current galus would be commemorated similarly. On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:01:50PM +0300, Menuchah Schwat wrote: : Tisha baChamishi That's ambiguous. The chumash uses "bachodesh" to be clearer about which is the day count, and which is the month. Even if the month number is a cardinal ("-i" - fifTH) and the day is an ordinal (no suffix) the way you wrote them. You don't explain *why* you think we'd go back to the biblical system, rather than commemorating the ge'ulah from Galus Edom. After all, even the nevi'im didn't stick to the original numbered months. And I think my suggested parallel makes /some/ sense, if not necessarily what the Sanhedrin will end up deciding. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kinos: Hashem as Spaceman? In-Reply-To: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In Kinah #7 (Aholi Asher Ta'avta), the Kalir wrote "v'nihyeita ketas bechalal". To our ears this evokes images of loneliness and isolation, of someone surrounded by vacuum, light-years from anywhere and anyone, but what did "chalal" even mean to people with a Ptolemaic model (if that) of the universe? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:34:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 14:34:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av Message-ID: I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana ---------------------- I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it even is one), I think you are doing OK! -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 15:04:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <187d2f.769a1cbd.46b254d0@aol.com> From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah " >> There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. << Kol tuv, Ilana >>>>>> What you did instinctively was the right thing to do. Here is what Eliyahu Kitov says in _The Book of Our Heritage_: --quote-- It is prohibited to greet one's friend or acquaintance on Tisha B'Av, and it is even prohibited to say "Good morning." If, however, one is greeted, he should answer in a low tone, in order not to arouse resentment." --end quote-- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 21:51:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:51:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed Message-ID: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand that not everyone agrees with this position). Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can determine where the issur actually is? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 23:57:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB, quoting Rachel Levmore: > Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox > Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. > Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, > Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef were still alive and active. And if someone writes a similar article in another few decades, perhaps some of today's great poskim will have been added posthumously to the list... Not to be cynical, but could it be that one of the factors that makes a gadol universally recognized and accepted across Orthodoxy is that he is no longer among the living? Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 04:18:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:18:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed In-Reply-To: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> References: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 02/08/17 00:51, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har > Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess > information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can > certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand > that not everyone agrees with this position). > > Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur > karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can > determine where the issur actually is? *Any* case where we got new information. Take the classic case of two pieces of fat, one shuman and one chelev, but one doesn't know which is which, and then one later finds out. Before finding out both were assur; if one ate one of them beshogeg one brings an asham and the other piece remains assur. Once the new information is acquired the shuman becomes permitted, and if it transpired that one ate the chelev one must now bring a chatas. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 05:07:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from the OU: > The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra > Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as > greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" > (Mechaber 554:20). ... ... > > Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l rules that Mazal Tov for a > recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B?Av since it is > considered a blessing and not a greeting. ... ... I honestly don't understand the distinction that causes a "greeting" to be assur, while allowing a "blessing" to be mutar. I would think that "good morning" is a blessing. Aren't we praying that the other person's morning will be a good one? Perhaps the distinction is in the degree of kavana with which the "good morning" is given and received. After all, if it were said as a blessing, and received as one, then wouldn't we respond to the "good morning" with something like "amen"? Perhaps we can prove "good morning" to be a mere greeting, by pointing out that the response is usually a perfunctory repeat of the words "good morning", rather than anything serious. In this light, I confidently suggest that "How are you?" is definitely a greeting, because usually no one expects a response other than "okay" or "fine". What of the Mechaber's halacha of "Shalom Aleichem"? Surely we would agree that "Shalom Aleichem" is a blessing, no? After all, the response to "Shalom Aleichem" is "Aleichem Shalom", and I suspect (YMMV) that this is usually sincere rather than perfunctory. This brings us to the very core of this halacha: RSZA is drawing a line between greeting and blessing, and his halacha about Mazel Tov makes no sense (to me) unless "Shalom Aleichem" is defined as the prototypical *greeting*, and *not* a blessing. I can't imagine why this would be so, unless the Mechaber already felt that "Shalom Aleichem" was usually said perfunctorially. And that's sad. Can anyone offer a different analysis of these various phrases? Finally, it seems to me that "perfunctory" is a good summary of why we can bring American money into a bathroom, despite the words "In God We Trust" being on them: Those words have become a mere perfunctory slogan, and are no longer a real statement of faith. But if we have downgraded "Shalom Aleichem" from blessing to greeting with that same logic, then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? Do any other poskim make this distinction (either in Hilchos Tish'a B'av, or in Hilchos Aveilus, or for that matter in Hilchos What Not To Do Before Shacharis) between a greeting and a blessing? I'd love to see it defined more clearly. (There was a point in my life when if I'd sneeze and someone would say "God bless you", my response was "Amen". But I stopped that fairly quickly as people tended to find my response quite jarring. Maybe "God bless you" is also in the category of a perfunctory greeting that should not be done on Tish'a B'av?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 06:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170802132730.GB27820@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:57:08AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack : of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef : were still alive and active... In the US, recognition of R' Henkin and RMF were near-universal. And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. In Israel, I think the most recent candidates are pre-Shas ROY and RSZA. Although ROY's pesaqim are distinctly Sepharadi, I think it's commonly accepted that Yabia Omer is one of the few sefarim written in my lifetime people will be learning centuries from now. My mention of pre-Shas points to something I think is one of the causes. The search for "daas Torah" on political and societal matters makes enemies and cynics from among those who disagree. As for RSZA, RALichtenstein notes that he posessed a gedulah different in kind, not just degree [inevitable nisqatnu hadoros], than those we've looked up to since. I highly recommend "Im Da'at Ein, Manhigut Minayin?" . In it RAL defends da'as Torah as a doctrine, but questions if anyone since RSZA has been qualified to have it. To quote my own pitgam from past posts: A gadol is tall enough to see over our fences. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 09:05:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Eleazar Hakalir Message-ID: Yesterday during the fast, I was reading about R. Eleazar Hakalir, and was struck by the fact that historians aren't sure when he lived, with some saying he lived during Mishnaic times and others saying he lived as late as the 11th century. I realize that pinpointing dates during this time period is difficult, but a 900 year swing seems very unusual. Is anyone familiar with any recent papers or articles that attempts to zero in on the real date when this poet lived? Any additional info appreciated. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 18:25:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170803012513.GC16841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: :> I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, :> but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk :> hurting his feelings. : I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it : even is one), I think you are doing OK! I am wondering whether cheerfully (rather than pro-forma, yotzei-zain, replying so as not to offend) greeting someone in this situation despite 9 beAv is an instance of huterah or dekhuyah. (Thus overanalyzing your parenthetic remark.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 4 13:52:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: ?A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha *minyanim* questioned my saying "*y'yasheir kochacha*" to one of the *olim* (FWIW, I was the *bal qorei*) and, a few min.s later, brought to the *bimah* an Artscroll-*dinim* paragraph (from the back of its 9Av *siddur*) about not greeting someone; my response, as you might guess, was that "*y'yasheir* /*yeeshar kochacha*" was not a greeting. A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "*Shalom aleichem*", like M'gilas Rus' "*H' imachem* // *y'varechcha H'*", is also a blessing, but the "problem"? comes up when it's utilized as a greeting. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 5 23:33:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:33:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and fish blood? we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking liquid and almond milk? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within > their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 04:29:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <221F9E1E-C833-4DA1-83A2-577056D221BF@cox.net> R? Akiva wrote: ?.then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? I would say the reason is that Shalom is one of God?s Names. There was once a study done on people?s responses to ?How are you?? The respondent was supposed to answer in the negative. So instead of saying ?fine, thank you,? the response would be either ?terrible,? ?awful,? ?not good,? etc. and guess what? Something like 90% would not even have realized the negative response. In other words, it is very perfunctory when someone greets someone else in a normal setting. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 09:55:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table > and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher > but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. > What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and > fish blood? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? > we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table > at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond > milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking > liquid and almond milk? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring white milk looking liquid to the meaty dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? I suspect that in both cases, you are noting the explicit prohibition against doing these things and then you are presuming that these prohibitions apply *only* to these specific foods. Then, having made that presumption, you are asking why this distinction exists. I suggest that this is an improper procedure. It would be more correct to note the prohibition about these specific things, and then to *ASK* whether the prohibition also applies to similar things. You might find that the prohibition *does* extend to other things: Example #2: Soy milk. When pareve coffee creamers first became easily available, they were all soy-based. Yet the hashgachos warned us to serve it only in the original container, precisely because of the halacha you cite. Example #1: Suppose you have a lightly-cooked steak in your plate. Some "red blood looking liquid" is leaking out of the meat onto the plate, and is absorbed into the mashed potatoes. There's no issur against those potatoes. I'm pretty sure you can even mix it up into the potatoes deliberately, or dip your bread into it and eat it. But can you pour it out of the plate, into a glass and *drink* it? I don't know. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 13:44:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Lecture from Herzog Yemei Iyun Message-ID: <25bb89bf-b093-17da-6af7-7c80276a5d1a@zahav.net.il> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXeFDdchKY One of the lectures at this year's Yemei Iyun at Herzog: Rav Bazaq (Har Etzion) and Rav Kashtiel (Yeshivat Eli) explain a story in Nach (Isha HaShunamite) each in his way. In doing so, they try to demonstrate the differences in approach between what is called "Tanach b'Gova Einayim" and "HaKav". According to a story that I read about this lecture, this was the first time, after years and years of fighting (sometimes extremely fierce fighting) between proponents of each approach, that two people got together and gave a lesson together. There have been conferences where each side explains why their approach is good and the other side is wrong, but this is the first time that two people taught together. The lectures are in conversational Hebrew. Besides the demonstration of the different approaches, the lectures themselves about the story are fantastic. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 22:20:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:20:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom haAtzamut. Ben On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Micha Berger wrote: > >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. > > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? > > Akiva Miller \ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 07:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> References: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170807140514.GC15062@aishdas.org> : On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > R' Micha Berger wrote: : >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within : >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. : > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom : haAtzamut. I knew he was capable of it because I know several such stories. In the future, try to remember everything I wrote over all of Avodah's 19 years' history. It would save me time. I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning something that non-intuitive. Including when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 18:45:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:45:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with > the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning > something that non-intuitive. I was trying to come up with a snappy comeback, but the truth is that I simply have a rotten memory. Or, perhaps, the non-intuitive stuff is lost more easily, precisely because the anti-intuitiveness makes it more difficult for the brain to reconstruct the chain of links. We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. > when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. > RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if > it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." I wish I had been aware of these shades of gray when I was younger. Thank you for sharing. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 07:29:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:54PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is : how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is : the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult : to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical reasons given: 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish model.) 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the community. (The usual Chassidish model.) 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from DT in general when he left Agudah.) #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and not necessarily personal ones. Here we're talking about halakhah. So, I'd like to see if we can discuss the flipside of the discussion. Rather than asking about the heteronomy of following gedolei haposqim and why today's posqim seem to be failing getting that kind of fealty from certain large segments of the masses, what about the autonomy end? We have a very literate masses. More people can hit the primary sources themselves. And for those who can't, oir lack the patience to, there are more secondary and tertiary sources available in laaz than ever before. Joys of computerized publishing, which has made producing a book cheaper than ever. In this world, how much autonomy should a sho'el assume for himself? Which questions don't need asking? I presume a wide variety of opinion; I am more interested in various rationales than in any particular answer. What about the LOR -- do you have thoughts about when he should field the question, and when he should punt to his own rav or to a gadol? And does the ease at which anyone can be reached anywhere on the globe matter? Universal education, telecom, the web's ability to provide instand "research" are all bottom-up reasons our authority is being decentralized. With little to do on those elegable to assume that authority vs those of the past. Although the ease of LH and motzi sheim ra about those rabbanim with today's tech does enter into it to, r"l. If no one can become a navi in his childhood neighborhood, today's world makes it harder and harder to leave that effect. My own feeling is that anyone of East European ancestry who was not higi'ah lehora'ah who faces a new (for them) situation and doesn't get a sense of consensus from the Chayei Adam, Qitzur, MB and AhS should be asking a she'eilah. Notice that shows my own bias against popularist guides. Unless said guide was written by or recommended by one's poseiq as a viable resource. And in terms of autonomy vs heteronomy, I would be seeking a poseiq who (1) convinces me of the soundness of his reasoning; and (2) is willing to work with my givens on things like hashkafah and beliefs about metzi'us, where there are no rules of pesaq. As in RMF's pesaq about Hallel on YhA. (Tangent: Notice that there is little connection between pesaq and hashkafah on this one. RYBS, the Zionist, adhered to a meta-halakhah in which the barriers to saying Hallel are high, and came out against. As a compromise for LORs whose mispallelim won't tolerate that, he would advise the rav to pasqen that they omit the berakhah. Whereas RMF told Zionists that leshitasam, it would be appropriate to say Hellal WITH a berakhah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 08:45:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Kashrus of Braekel Message-ID: <20170808154508.GA12433@aishdas.org> They're now importing to EY from Europe a new breed of chicken, the braekel. See http://www.baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=37&ARTICLE_ID=90778 ... Members of the Eida Charedis' Vaad Shechita, prominent rabbonim and kashrus experts gathered in the home of Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita to determine if a new chicken, imported from Europe, has a kosher status. The discussion lasted for four hours! The new bird is called Braekel, and according to HaGaon HaRav Sternbuch, the bird is not kosher. However, in Bnei Brak, HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita has ruled it is kosher. The chicken was raised in Europe in an area void of Jews and Rav Sternbuch feels it lacks the `mesora' required. Wikipedia reports that it is indeed Gallus gallus domesticus, actual chicken in scientific taxonomy. And The Brakel is not cultivated for its meat, but merely for its egg-laying qualities. The breed is capable of producing 180 to 200 white eggs a year. This isn't remotely like the leghorn, a breed of chicken that has 2 "thumbs" and 2 other toes per claw, rather than the usual for kosher birds -- 1 "thumb" and 3. And it's accepted as kosher, in fact, the source of most of our eggs here in the states. But the breakel has normal simanim. For that matter, according to some pesaqim about why we can eat turkey (the context in which the kashrus of leghorn chickens most often comes up) we even accept Meleagris gallopavo, turkey, as being within the mesorah for chickens and they aren't even in the same genus! Third wiki-note, commenting on the two subtypes of braekel chicken that have since interbread into one: In the UK, USA and Australia, however, one can still find descendants of the Kempische Brakel under its old name 'Campine'. The Campine has evolved differently from the Brakel. The most noticeable difference is the hen-feathering of the rooster and the lower weight. We in the US are treating a bird that evolved (nishtanah hateva, if you prefer) from the breakel as kosher; no one requires checking if an egg is campine or not. It's not even like the mesorah has been silent; even if each breed of G. gallus domesticus needs it's own mesorah. So, lo zakhisi lehavin RMS's reluctance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 09:27:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> References: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <69647634-1f0b-8686-3b9b-f1fe2958ab37@sero.name> On 08/08/17 10:29, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning > to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical > reasons given: > > 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and > ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish > model.) > > 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the > community. (The usual Chassidish model.) > > 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would > ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to > Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the > current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and > doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, > and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from > DT in general when he left Agudah.) > > #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and > not necessarily personal ones. #4 All true knowledge is in the Torah, and finding it is a matter of making non-obvious connections. Therefore someone who has absorbed enough of it to do so can find the correct answer to anything, though he may not be able to explain how he did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 12:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hebrew manuscripts Message-ID: A database of ancient Hebrew manuscripts is now available at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLIS/en/ManuScript/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 18:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel Message-ID: . This past October (in Avodah 34:130) I mentioned a practice that I've seen growing in recent years, that of making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. I was learning about the issur of eating a large seudah on Erev Shabbos, and I came across something that seems very relevant to that practice. Form the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod Hashabbos" writes: "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 21:21:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:21:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142a02db-9198-65c3-9f5d-1b882fc5f525@sero.name> On 08/08/17 21:24, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of > appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, > making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." However, "to`ameha chayim zachu". Tasting a little of the Shabbos dishes, as opposed to gorging oneself on them, is very much kevod Shabbos, to increase the anticipation, like a sneak preview. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 11:58:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the : reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with : which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod : Hashabbos" writes: : "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of : appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, : making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." These motives have a nadka mina. If one fills up Fri afternoon on food they don't enjoy (perhaps it's healthful) or wouldn't eat in a formal or celebratory setting, one is running afoul of the SA's sevara, but not the PM's. In contrast, having significant amounts of Shabbos-appropriate food but not to the point of ruining one's appetite by the time maariv is over would be a problem according to the PM, but not the SA's sevara. Zev mentioned the case of tasting Shabbos food. The MB 250:2 uses the word "lit'om". The Machzor Vitri cites a lost Y-mi and invokes "to'ameha chaim zakhu" -- I think it's specifically te'imah. As in, less than a kezayis, no berakhah, not really eating. (Which is why I wrote last paragraph about "significant amounts".) It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. BUT.... The whole point of chulent is to have hot food in Shabbos lunch, to fulfill the obligation (SA OC 271:3) of making it the more special meal. (Rather than Fri night dinner. See Shaarei Teshuvah #1.) The AhS says one is not obligated to abstain from special Shabbos-lunch foods Fri night. But I'm talking about Thu night, altogether before Shabbos. O Seems to me that until someone finds a new "special Shabbos lunch food", Thu night chulent ought to be prohibited! Whereas one SHOULD just taste the chulent on Fri, and it is permitted (but sub-optimal) to have some with Fri night dinner. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 22:14:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:14:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Not just yeshiva guys. It has become a minor trendy thing for all sort of people to travel to Bnei Braq to get chulent. On 8/9/2017 8:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". > My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and > Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment > near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 04:43:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (=?utf-8?B?157XoNeV15fXlCDXqdeR15g=?= via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: The Mishna Brura clearly states that the reason for tasting on erev shabbat is "kedei letaken". This refers to tasting during the cooking process and does not fit with the whole kugel minhag. Menucha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 11:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] publishing trends Message-ID: I'd love to hear any analysis (or guesses) as to what are the percentages of different types of sefarim (both Hebrew and English) being published in the current era, how they differ from those in the past and, most interestingly to me, what are the drivers for these trends? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 15:37:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:37:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Milk, Blood and look alikes Message-ID: I fear that the Halachic posture of *Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to?* although making sense from a narrow perspective, actually invites Halachic disaster, and is quite incorrect. Halacha asserts all is permitted unless it is prohibited. Here is an example in which the Shach seems to assert that Maris Ayin is limited to its narrow description and is not to be expanded according to what makes sense to us. BP, those that have been found within a Shechted cow, require Shechita once they have walked about. Before they have walked about they do not require Shechita. However, Ben PeKuAh can also be created via natural breeding which goes on forever. So we can have a large herd of BP none of which are identifiable as BP. The Mechaber Paskens without qualifying, *until they have walked about* - that the naturally born BP all require Shechita. This would appear to suggest that they require Shechita even before they have walked about. And there is good reason to understand this to be the Halacha, after all in this herd there is absolutely no way to identify them as BP whereas those found in a Shechted mother are readily identified as being BP. And I presume that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, the Shach makes it clear that the decree that requires that they be Shechted applies only after they have walked about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 11 07:15:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Summer and Travel Videos Message-ID: <1502460917652.98832@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y8drmxm3 Kosher Summer and Travel Videos As you prepare to fire up the grill for the summer or hit the road on vacation, countless Kashrut issues arise: Can I cook on a public grill in a park? Can I use a hotel room microwave? How should one pray on an airplane? These commonly asked questions and many more will be answered in our 2017 Kosher summer and travel series. Your esteemed guide through this halachic journey? It's none other than Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of OU Kosher. View the questions and answers below! Can you cook on a BBQ that has previously been used for Non-Kosher meat? Can meat and fish be cooked on the same BBQ? Can you eat cut fruit from an uncertified vendor? Can you buy coffee from a non-kosher establishment or a kiosk? May you purchase salad from an uncertified entity when traveling on the road? What products am I permitted to eat from an ice cream store? What are the Halachos in regards to prayer on an airplane? What are the Kashrut issues with airline meals? Can in-room hotel microwaves be used without kashering? Is it permissible to take antihistamines or other medication without certification? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 13 06:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] piskei rid Message-ID: <591d6b28af34484fac75d4f2918958a9@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The bar ilan database notes that its version is from Yad Ha-Rav Herzog. Does anyone have a copy that can see who authored the footnotes? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 02:06:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 07:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken Message-ID: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. See the above URL for more. See also http://tinyurl.com/yckl2bqj YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 08:23:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From > http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h > Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that > he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. Since when is rabbi M any sort if authority in The USA? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 11:28:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:28:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> This whole thing reminds me of the one-a-generation broohaha over leghorn chickens. Leghorns and braekels are chickens, much the way chihuahuas are dogs, despire being rather unique looking dogs -- or chickens. Like other chickens, they are Gallus gallus domesticus. Not even a remote question of problems interbreeding. Every 20 years or so someone notices that the leghorn chicken has two "thumbs" pointing back, and two toes pointing forward, rather than the usual 3-and-1 we expect for kosher birds. And yet, white leghorns make beautifully white eggs, and so it is the breed most American chicken eggs come from. Actually, both it and the braekel chicken do indeed grab the perch in a 2-and-2 grip, once comfortably on it, they go to the 3-and-1 of the rest of the species. And like the leghorn chicken, the braekel chicken is a source of eggs in the US. However, not under the name "braekel". But America's campine chicken, which has the same kind of foot, was breed from the Kempishe Breakel. The question was resolved quite a while ago, which is why we in the US don't have to chase down which breed of chicken an egg came from. So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was raised, we were about to assur, and then it was found that in much of the world zebu was already being eaten as cow. And in fact, MOST tefillin made from gasos are zebu leather! The breakel, which is a normal enough part of the general chicken gene pool to get the usual taxonomical name -- Gallus gallus domesticus. But there are two subspecies of cow: those without a hump between their shoulder are Bos taurus taurus. Those that have such a hump, eg zebu, are Bos taurus indicus. But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can interbreed and produce fertile young, in which case how did any of these questions get started? The mesorah for chickens must therefore include oddballs of the min like leghorn, braekel and campine breeds, and that for cows must include the full min, both subspecies. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 13:42:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <692953b1-38ed-f530-7beb-1656bdc7942d@sero.name> On 14/08/17 14:28, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was > raised, we were about to assur, Very few were about to asser, because the view that a mesorah is needed for mammals is very much a daas yochid. > But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can > interbreed and produce fertile young This is true for mammals, not necessarily for birds. I'd put a different argument: Let's suppose that it *is* a new min, for which no mesorah can exist because it didn't exist until relatively recently. For that very reason we can be 100% certain that it isn't one of the 24 listed species, and therefore doesn't need a mesorah. And if it's *not* a new min then it's a chicken, and once again kosher (except according to Anan ben David y"sh). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 06:36:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:36:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn't this an issue, since they are using less than a revi'is (approximately 3.3 oz. - minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber's question) A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi'is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi'is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi'is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m'lo lugmav (half a revi'is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 14:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170815214945.GA13601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including :> the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha :> follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a :> shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow :> their minhag. Regardless of the shei'ur, so this is perhaps tangential.... The AhS talks about the difficulty in obtaining real wine, the kashrus of "wine" from soaked raisins, and thus the schnapps option. I wonder if so many rabbeim would have insisted on making qiddush on schnapps at all if wine were an affordable option where they lived. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 15:24:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: . R' Ben Waxman asked: > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot > right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the > members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset > on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the > right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine > no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose > money? My first thought is that this is a great example of a question that should be addressed to the rav of the beit knesset. There are so many factors that need to be weighed against each other, such as how badly the shul needs the money, and how many hurt feelings will be created by giving the wrong answer. As regards the comment "a sale is a sale" -- I'm not so sure. Sounds like a "davar shelo ba laolam" to me. Especially since we are considering the real possibility that a kohen guest might show up, rendering the auction questionable. Just my two grush. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 02:54:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Use of Stone Keilim During Bayis Sheini Message-ID: <20170816095450.GA3826@aishdas.org> See http://www.timesofisrael.com/2000-year-old-stone-workshop-discovered-near-where-jesus-turned-water-into-wine or http://j.mp/2v1gxan The Times of Israel By Amanda Borschel-Dan August 10, 2017, 11:51 am 2,000-year-old stone workshop discovered near where Jesus turned water into Only four Second Temple stoneware production centers have been unearthed in Israel Because it was immune to ritual impurity, the use of stoneware was rife among Jews during the Roman era ... A large 2,000-year-old Second Temple period chalkstone quarry and workshop was discovered at Reina in lower Galilee by a team of archaeologists headed by Dr. Yonatan Adler... A manmade chalkstone quarry cave was recently discovered between between Nazareth and the village of Kana. What is unique in this excavation is the additional find of a stoneware workshop -- one of only four in Israel. Although pottery was also in use during this period, archaeological digs around the region point to an uptick in stoneware during the Second Temple period -- likely for ritual purity reasons, as attested in the Talmud. "In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee also used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone," said Adler. ... "According to ancient Jewish ritual law, vessels made of pottery are easily made impure and must be broken. Stone, on the other hand, was thought to be a material which can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce some of their everyday tableware from stone," he said. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 04:45:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:45:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh Message-ID: . At first, I was going to pose these nitpicky questions on our Mesorah list. But then I found some answers, and I decided to share my journey with the whole chevra. If it doesn't put you to sleep from boredom, please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Shmos 1:10 - Paro starts panicking over the Jewish Problem. First, they're multiplying, and then, "ki sikrena milchama..." 1. What is the root of Sikrena? Kuf resh aleph, or kuf resh heh? 2a. If it is kuf resh heh - "if war happens" - then what is the aleph for? Is this a kri/ksiv situation? Does anyone explicitly refer to it as a kri/ksiv? 2b. If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? Why does every single translation and peirush render it as "if war occurs", or similar? Or do you know of any exceptions that I couldn't find? 3. What form is this word? My guess is that it is Kal, future, 3rd person feminine plural: "They(f) will...". That fits well with "proclaim", if "they(f)" refers to the attacking nations. But if the root is kuf resh heh, I don't know why the plural would be used. Is "milchama" some sort of plural or collective noun? Other relevant information: RSR Hirsch says that "sikrena" is a plural form, and therefore "milchama" is probably not the subject but the object. for the word's meaning, he refers us to Yeshaya 41:22, where this same word occurs. But as I see it, these words are not spelled the same: Where Shemos spells it with an aleph, Yeshaya has a yud. (I suppose Rav Hirsch considers this difference insignificant, but I'm not knowledgable enough to understand why.) I did find one lone voice who says that the root of "sikrena" is "read/call" and not "happen/occur". Namely, Mandelkern's Concordance. Yeshaya 41:22 appears on 1047d, in the root kuf-resh-heh. But he places our pasuk, Shemos 1:10, on 1043c, in the root kuf-resh-aleph. Another data point from Mandelkern: His opinion is that "sikrena" in Shemos 1:10 is a third-person plural verb. This is different from the second-person plural verb, which is spelled exactly the same, and appears in Rus 1:20 and 1:21, and in the Concordance on 1042a. I suspect that Mandelkern would endorse "*they* will proclaim war" as a correct translation. Finally, I tried a non-Jewish website devoted to translation issues. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7122.htm is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, and other similar sources. I probably could have gotten the same information from Mandelkern, but seeing their English translation on-screen made these examples jump out at me: Bereshis 42:4 - [Yaakov] said, "Lest disaster *happen* [to Binyamin]." Bereshis 49:1 - Yaakov said, "... I will tell you what will *happen* to you at the end of days." Vayikra 10:19 - Aharon told Moshe, "... such has *happened* to me..." Devarim 22:6 - When you *happen* upon a bird's nest... In all of the above, the Torah's word is spelled with a kuf-resh-ALEPH root. I find myself forced to concede that there is strong evidence (dare I call it "proof"?) that in addition to the usual meanings "read" and "call", kuf-resh-aleph can also mean "happen". Having said that, I was tempted to take this even farther. That page on BibleHub brings a lot examples where they translate kuf-resh-aleph as "meet". At first glance, I did not take it seriously; I felt that our common translation as "call" was more appropriate. For example, Shemos 5:3. where Moshe and Aharon tell Paro, "The God of the Hebrews nikra to us, so let us go for three days..." In my mind, this meant "Hashem called to us", and I rejected BibleHub's translation of "... has met with us." But then I read ("happened upon"? pun intended!) ArtScroll's translation, which is "...happened upon us." I was surprised by this, but I was even more surprised when I saw RSR Hirsch on this pasuk, where he tells us to look at Shemos 3:18, where he shows that these two roots (kuf resh aleph and kuf resh heh) are indeed similar. And so I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to translate Shemos 1:10 as "when a war happens". Does all this teach us anything about the small aleph in Vayikra 1:1? I leave that as an exercize for the reader. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 10:41:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish > or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? I don't think "proclaiming war" is something that can even happen in Hebrew. One can call *for* war, but the lamed is necessary. I can't think of any direct examples right now, but consider the parallel "vekarasa eleha leshalom". On the other hand we do have "ukrasem deror". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:25:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected cohen guest is the only option. If it is the aliyah itself which is sold then the cohen should be able to claim the shul had no right to sell it, and the choshen mishpat shailah is whether the shul or the buyer takes the loss. Obviously just my opinion not meant to second guess the mara d'atra. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? > > If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? > > If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:34:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:18 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I wonder if everyone agrees with the Machstzis Hashekel, i.e., would everyone agree that if you hold like the Taz the you can make kiddush on it? I was startled by the conclusion until I realized that "their minhag" refers to their own minhag, the the minhag of the Rebbes mentioned in the previous sentence. Still odd though, surely this is a psak halacha not a minhag. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn?t this an issue, since they are using less than a revi?is (approximately 3.3 oz. ? minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber?s question) > A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi?is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi?is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. > > Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi?is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m?lo lugmav (half a revi?is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. > > Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 15:22:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502922161954.91323@stevens.edu> Please see the article sent to me by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky that I have posted at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 04:55:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate Message-ID: A work around for agunot wanting to have kids: Rav Yitzhaq Yosef* ruled that an IVF child isn't a mamzer in a case of a married woman having her egg fertilized with the sperm of a man who who isn't her husband. Now an MK wants to use this psak to enable agunot to conceive via IVF and her kids won't have mamzerut problems (and have the treatment paid for by the state). * Yes other rabbis have given this ruling but when the Chief Rabbi gives a psak it gives a stronger basis for a knesset member to propose a law. See the article for more details (Hebrew): http://bit.ly/2uOmI6x I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A single woman is allowed to get IVF. Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 09:27:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170818162719.GF5755@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:25:19PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen : in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is : the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected : cohen guest is the only option... While I agree with that conclusion, the answer to your opening question was in RBW's post: :> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right :> after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are :> kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning... They sold the aliyah on the presumption that, as usual. And in fact, this "chazaqah" is so solid, RBS asked this eventually as a hypothetical; the wording he thought of was "were ... to come" not "when ... does come". Perhaps there was originally an al-tenai that simply people no longer remember. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:46:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818174604.GH5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:52:59PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha : minyanim questioned my saying "y'yasheir kochacha" to one of the olim ... : A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) : dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "Shalom aleichem", like M'gilas Rus' "H' : imachem // y'varechcha H'", is also a blessing, but the "problem" comes : up when it's utilized as a greeting. My rule: If said as a social pleasantry, or as a mindless playback of a recording your parents / society taught you, it's a greeting. But if you care more about whether the RBSO heard you than the person you're saying it about, it's a berakhah. And usually it's somewhere between those poles. With a skew toward the greeing end. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:02:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:02:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A : single woman is allowed to get IVF. I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei mi shelo nivra". But... This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless worse than never existing at all? (I adapted that line from arguments about aborting a fetus that tests positive for Downs. How many people with Downs hate their life so much that they regret existing?) : Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Marriage as described in Bereishis 1, perhaps. "Peru urevu umil'u es ha'aetz". But the intimacy of Bereishis 2 is not adressed "... al kein ya'azov ish es aviv ve'es imo, vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu lebasar echad". My version of "the talk" with my boys started with these two pesuqim. Explaining that relations are to serve these two functions. And also, while birth control can address one of these two, extramarital relations outside of "vedavaq be'isho" translate into exercises in weakening that bond, that gift HQBH gave us. (Adding now, as this bit would go over their heads: to approximate Adam Qadmon as humanity is described before Adam and Chavah are made from one into two.) And then, after establishing theological context, the talk continued on the usual biological and psychological planes. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 11:27:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses in Judaism Message-ID: R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/ He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American Eclipse of 2017: Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 14:10:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: . On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients. I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. > ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient > with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the > well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov > yisroel", just like many people today. And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then what did they do wrong? The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good description of it, I'd appreciate it.) The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food that even went by another name. And the very first time that they asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained. In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product. Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I wrote here 15 years ago: (http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03) > Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free > breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored > liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I > understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that > assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that > one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff, > and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap > orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice, > isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 11:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:29:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> References: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <529972d5-f946-74d5-e97e-26fbf8cbced3@starways.net> On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural > : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any > : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a > : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A > : single woman is allowed to get IVF. > > I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei > mi shelo nivra". But... I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view. > This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless > worse than never existing at all? Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 17:30:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:30:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, Cheilev and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. Is this correct? Can anyone offer some illumination? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 21:43:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4577e69b-191e-24b3-90cc-757555b83cd6@sero.name> On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... > Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I > don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at their lodgings. Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream? A grocery. >> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient >> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the >> well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov >> yisroel", just like many people today. > And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then > what did they do wrong? This is precisely the AhS's point. He strongly rejects the view of those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens when one does so. > > The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are > "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". > (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good > description of it, I'd appreciate it.) It's schmant in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet cream for coffee. Cf smetana, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour cream is zoyer shmetene. > The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to > what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food technology made everything complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel. (This is why the term "cholov stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used. RMF rejects the idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils its requirements.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 07:17:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: ' R' Zev Sero wrote: > No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type > of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in > Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least > one could before modern food technology made everything > complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to > *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, > etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. Summary: I concede. Longer version: I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as a resident of the 5700s. I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned about such things. I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the, there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly, there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them. There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in 1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the drivers for this change. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 12:04:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:04:07 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: <201708201904.v7KJ47OS022554@hsdm.com> >And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") . From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 22:11:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 01:11:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. > So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, > Cheilev > and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly > think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev. I don't know whether deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something that is identical to chelev so there is no question. (The difference may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone will think it's chelev? Obviously we don't worry about that because an observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to that conclusion?) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 08:37:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk Message-ID: . Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, but we don't hold like him. In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking, eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di" come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds. Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a - <<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds, who don't have mother's milk. >>> Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says it's d'rabanan. We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav", WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di" would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we learn from the word "imo"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 06:32:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse Message-ID: <1503322352892.87303@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 15:09:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis Message-ID: . Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads: > Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so > which bracha should be said? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for > which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the > acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and > great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. > It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. > Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe- > inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? > > Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and > Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh > Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which > are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states > that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's > sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many > commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. > As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses > are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. > > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of anyone else who comments on this question? Thanks! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 16:06:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses : > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah : > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). : : Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of : anyone else who comments on this question? The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses. The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human sin. Wholesale, not retail. The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer to the question in his words. The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who continue ignoring such signs. In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence". At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who aren't religiously moved by it. Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally used language of Wisdom and Intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 17:07:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> References: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b@sero.name> > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer > to the question in his words. That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's servant, the moon. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 04:11:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? Message-ID: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Something doesn?t add up. Every 28 years around April 8th, we recite the birkat hachama (last time, April 8th 2009, next time, April 8th 20037). Every month we recite the blessing over the moon. And as I learned, the ?oseh ma?aseh b?reshis? is over lightening but not over thunder and volcanoes. For thunder and volcanoes I thought we say ?shekocho g?vuroso malei olam.? Regarding an eclipse as an incredible and awe inspiring event, so is being in the presence of a child being born or in the presence of a person having being declared dead, resuscitated back to life. Is there a b?rocho for that? > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 07:16:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170822141651.LBEF22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> I heard a very interesting shiur at yutorah. Everything below was mentioned, plus one other thing: a great explanation of a gemara (or another Chazal) that says something like: "X" comes into the world (X might have been eclipses, or, if not, something related in some way) with four reasons: - not appropriately euglogizing an av beis din - (I can't remember) - homosexuality - the death of two brothers at once (or in battle) (He started the connection my explaining the ma'aseh of the moon's complaint against H' at creation . . . ) Here's the problem with my post: - I got to it via the "featured shiruim" on my YUTorah phone app -- and it's not there now. I went to the desktop site, and I can't seem to find it - I don't remember who it was (except that the rav who gave it over had a middle or eastern European accent) (My excuse: I went to western South Carolina to see the eclipse. The 8 hour drive home turned into almost 13 hours because of traffic, and I drove alone. I heard a lot of shiurim and my mind is pretty fuzzy . . . ) FWIW, -- Sholom At 05:40 AM 8/22/2017, via Avodah wrote: >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 >From: Zev Sero via Avodah >To: Avodah >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis >Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b at sero.name> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't > see an answer > > to the question in his words. > >That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points >out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that >eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or >moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means >that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens >is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or >mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, >even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise >and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when >Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. > >This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural >phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but >Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind >Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. > >This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry >at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them >and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't >they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it >removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun >is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's >servant, the moon. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 17:47:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:47:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness Message-ID: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> There was a discussion on Areivim about a particular person who was accused of committing a particularly evil crime. Someone posted, among other comments, ?I will add that the "rabbi" who committed these horrific acts is objectively G-dless. Apikores is too mild a term for him.? My response to this fits more for Avodah than Areivim: I know this man and most of the other players in this story. And while I haven?t interviewed him recently to test R?n TK?s assertion, it is my opinion that as reprehensible as these events are, it doesn?t mean that the person who committed them is Godless. Is any sinner Godless? More likely, a sinner like this carries around a huge measure of denial and/or conflict. But that doesn?t make him or her Godless. The Gemara says, in fact, that some sinners ? during the moment they?re sinning(!) are close to Hashem (Berachos 63a). I?ll elaborate: In truth, the argument can be made that any time a person sins he or she is Godless. Tomer Devorah in the first perek makes the contrapositive point ? that Shuras HaDin would dictate that Hashem remove himself from a person at the time of his sin, resulting in the sinner?s instant death. His response to that is that Hashem?s mercy is what keeps the person alive ? Hashem does not remove himself from the person, and keeps sustaining him or her even while he or she is sinning with the very power invested by Hashem in them that enables them to sin. But probably most times well-meaning people sin, their sin comes from one of the following three: ignorance, negligence, or lust. Ignorance: Not knowing or remembering something is forbidden. Negligence: Not caring enough to take care not to inadvertently sin. Lust: Being blinded to the evil that one is doing because of the strong desire to benefit from it. In all those cases, the person who is sinning is not thinking about Hashem. He?s ? in your terms ? ?objectively Godless.? But can he really be called that? Let?s talk about two extremes: The person who walks in front of another person who is saying Shemoneh Esrei (relatively minor), vs. the person who is not shomer negiah (relatively major). In both those cases it?s not that the person is not thinking about Hashem (which he admittedly is not), but that the person is not thinking about sin. Or, more succinctly, the person is just not thinking. Not Godless, but thought-less. And that can sum up all of the three categories ? ignorance, negligence, and lust cause people to sin by not thinking. So what happens when a person is a thinker? There are two possibilities. The person can be like Nimrod, "???? ????? ??????? ????? ??" ? he knows Hashem and doesn?t listen to him, although he recognized Hashem?s existence. That?s a plain old Rasha. But he?s not Godless ? ???? ?????. The second possibility is that that person does think about Hashem. He does think about his actions. He does know how bad it is what he?s doing. In other areas, not his weakness, he does keep to Hashem?s will. He is ???? ????? but he?s not ?????? ????? ??. Such a person, I think, is incredibly conflicted. He knows about Hashem and he?s rebelling against him on the one hand, while trying to obey him on the other. That person might be evil, might be scum of the earth, but he?s not Godless. On the contrary. And although we have to condemn such a person and his horrible actions, and we don?t envy his punishment in the World to Come, we might also be a little jealous of his relationship with Hashem. This may well be the reason the Gemara tells us that a person who says Lashon Hara about a talmid chacham falls in Gehennom, since the talmid chacham definitely did Teshuvah (Berachos 19a). How do we know he definitely did teshuvah? Because a talmid chacham, by definition, is a thinker. He didn?t indulge in non-thinking ? that?s not in his nature. And even if he had a moment of weakness and did something wrong, he certainly rebounded and regretted it the next day. (Contrast the talmid chacham with the non-thinker of before ? he just continues blissfully on with his life not realizing or caring that he sinned. That?s why we are not required to presume that he did Teshuvah.) A Godless person, properly defined, is one who denies Hashem?s existence completely. We have no basis, in this case or in many others, to assert that those are the circumstances we?re dealing with. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 23:43:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 06:43:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? On the topic Kvct Joel Rich Sent from my iPhone THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 21:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:06 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: It seems we agree that there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you are, eating what looks for all intents and purposes, to be Cheilev Yet Chazal were not Gozer to prohibit this due to Maris Ayin. Is the physical difference between Cheilev and Shuman more than the difference between fish blood and animal blood? Would there be no confusion between red coloured liquids, like wine and animal blood? There is no MA on Ben PeKuAh that is salvaged as a non-fully-gestated, no matter how long it lives and no matter how much it looks smells tastes and feels like an ordinary beast. Why is that so? Proposing that - IT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO CHEILEV SO THERE IS NO QUESTION - seems a little fantastic And indeed we should ask - why don't we worry that onlookers will think that beef Shuman is Cheilev? Is it OBVIOUS that there is no reason to suspect it is Cheilev, so why jump to that conclusion? I do not think so. I suspect that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies is as a product similar to the prohibited product. Perhaps like the position that Min BeMino is determined by name not by taste, Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 04:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Since when? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 07:09:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> References: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170823140919.GB32207@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:28AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: :> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat : Since when? Tangent: One of my pet peeves about Brisker derekh is how "chalos sheim" often is just begging the question. X needs a P, or else it doesn't really have the chalos sheim X. It's an empty statement, just saying that P is needed because the category needs P. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:13:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:13:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tax Evasion and Esrog purchasing In-Reply-To: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> References: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170825191326.GA15871@aishdas.org> Back in Sep 2014 Every year I mention the problem of buying an esrog from someone who > offers a better price if you pay in cash. Last year I was able to shift > from "li nir'eh it's a problem". RHSchachter reports that according to > RJBSoloveitchik, helping the seller evade taxes in this way is lifnei iver > (deOraisa, not "just" the derabbanan of mesayeia) and THE ESROG IS PASUL. They just put R' Asher Weiss's teshuvah on this subject up at : Tvunah in English Question: I recently went to a store and was told if a pay in cash then i would not need to pay taxes. If it is obvious that by me paying in taxes the store owner would not pay the proper tax on this sale to the government, am I allowed to do such a purchase or there is a problem of [lifnei iveir lo sisein mikhshol]. Answer: This would not seem to be the actual prohibition of Lifnei Iver as cash payment is inherently permissible and he can and may still pay taxes. There are a number of reasons a person would prefer cash payments, aside from tax evasion. At the same time, with regards to taxes we should generally assume Dina Demalchusa Dina and not encourage or promote tax evasion. It would seem RAW agrees on the halakhah, but disagrees that you should be chosheish that the preference for cash is due to tax evasion. Although in the first sentence the sho'el says the salesman told him so outright!? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:29:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:29:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Eilu va'Eilu Message-ID: <20170825192948.GA17720@aishdas.org> Because how can I /not/ share something on eilu va'eilu? -micha ----- Forwarded message from torahweb at torahweb.org ----- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:31:45 -0400 From: torahweb at torahweb.org Subject: updates to Rav Schachter's dvar Torah To: weeklydt at torahweb.org TorahWeb EILU V'EILU Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim -- both opinions are the words of the Living G-d." although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she'ha'Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She'b'al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah. The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether -- according to their perspective -- the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim." This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions imply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v'eilu. Even when we do apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" it does not mean that halacha l'ma'aseh one has the right to follow either opinion. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v'eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, "Beis Shamai b'makom Beis Hille eina Mishna", i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don't even consider the views of Beis Shamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d'hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b'chutz la'aretzm, even when dealing with a d'oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l'hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l'ma'aseh. (See my sefer, B'Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.) Likewise the poskim assume that when you have a shitah y'chida'ah, a lone opinion among poskim not shared by others, this view also does not constitute a slight safeik. The Beis Shmuel (Shulchan Aruch, Even HoEzer siman 90, s'if kattan 6) thinks that even if the Rambam agrees with the Ri Migash on an position not agreed upon by other poskim, this view should be totally ignored, since the Rambam was so taken by the genius of the Ri Migash (his father's rebbe), and would naturally be inclined to accept his opinion without even thinking twice (even though in several instances the Rambam does reject his opinion), this psak would be considered a shitah y'chida'ah and should be totally ignored. It was recently reported that a certain "beis din" permitted a married woman to remarry without a get, because it was ascertained that her husband was not Sabbath observant at the time he married her, and the halacha considers one who is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia to be like a non-Jew. And, they reasoned, we all know that if a non-Jew marries a Jewish woman the marriage does not take effect. This ruling is absolutely scandalous. First of all, the consensus of recent poskim has been that the concept of mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia doesn't apply today since so many Jews are not shomer Shabbos and the term "b'farhesia" has the connotation that this individual is breaking the discipline in the community (Chazon Ish and Binyan Tzion.) The members of this "beis din" would most certainly have been the first to say that such a Jew would not cause wine he touched to become prohibited because he is not considered to be like a non-Jew. More importantly, the view that a Jew who is treated as a non-Jew because he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia can't effectively marry a Jewish woman is totally ignored, because it is against an explicit gemara (Yevamos 47b) that states that even if a Jew converts to another religion and marries a Jewish woman the marriage does in fact take effect. We can't apply the concept of eilu v'eilu to this view; it is simply incorrect. Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v'eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v'eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does notmean that it has ramifications halacha l'ma'aseh. There are rules and regulations regarding psak halacha; this discipline is not hefker (is not a free for all.) The parsha tells us that the halachic positions of the Beis Din Hagadol are binding on all Jews. The Sanhedrin was a group of Torah scholars who were clearly head and shoulders above all of their contemporaries. They were the gedolei hador (the Torah giants of their generation), and the gedolei hador have the status of rabo muvhak for their entire generation, even for those who never even met them (see Tosafos on Berachos 31b and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 244:10.) The halachic positions of one's rebbe muvhak are binding on him, and the halachic views of the gedolei hador (who are clearly head and shoulders above the other Torah scholars of their generation) may not be ignored. None of the members of the aforementioned "beis din" are recognized by anyone as belonging to the category of gedolei hador, and even if it had been a case where we would apply eilu v'eilu, since the gedolei hador have unanimously rejected it for generations, no one today who is not in the category of gedolei hador has the right to go against this rejection! Rabbinic leaders throughout the generations are always concerned with the plight of agunos, but coming up with non-halachic solutions is not the Orthodox way. The Talmud Yerushalmi seems to hold that the concept of pikuach nefesh doesn't only apply when one's life is in danger, but also if one's life will be made extremely miserable this too falls under the category of pikuach nefesh, which allows one to violate Torah laws. The Yerushalmi (quoted by Rav Yosef Engle in Teshuvas Aguna) says that we would have allowed every agunah to violate the prohibition of adultery if not for the fact that we are dealing with gilui arayos (forbidden marriages) where the halacha does not permit one to violate the mitzvah even in a case of literal pikuach nefesh -- even to save one's life. The aforementioned "beis din" is doing a disservice to the Orthodox Jewish community at large, and specifically to these poor agunos, by misleading them with absolutely scandalously fallacious piskei halacha. Let the public beware! One must be of the caliber of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski in his generation or Rav Moshe Feinstein in the past generation in order to determine in a given case if the halacha permits a woman to get remarried without a get. POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the aforementioned "beis din", also see important letter from Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz regarding the "International Beit Din" . Copyright (c) 2017 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 09:42:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Poem For Elul Message-ID: <20170827164248.GA14698@aishdas.org> Saw on Facebook and wanted to share. I am not sure if R Bin Goldman intended the title to be "a poem for elul" (sic) and the first line read (in Hebrew, my transliteration) "Lekha Amar Libi" or if he wrote a poem titled "Lekha Amar Libi, which he introduced as a poem for Elul. I am presenting it as if the latter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Lekha Amar Libi [R'] Bin Goldman My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:18:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach Message-ID: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)? If not, where is its force grounded? Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own law as long as it doesn?t contradict the seven? Who would be eligible to be on a Bnai Noach court and how much interpretive independence would they have? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:19:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Moshe and aharon Message-ID: <846178C1-4E50-4DC0-9C2B-7D9B22F0E745@sibson.com> Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b ) two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to debate] Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse Kt Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 18:53:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:10 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... Message-ID: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin presented in an earlier message. The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product. Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting - please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when? Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera, see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its - Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues] R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. Would you please explain how and/or why? = = = = = = Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are 3 issues that require clarification: 1. Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protests? Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: 1. Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. 2. Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:34:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8326ab8f-6f6d-4868-0fd3-9a28f508abd0@sero.name> On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. > Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the important) distinction. I don't know how similar they look on the surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with different names even in English. > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Once again, I object. Who says so? > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be > performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to > the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 07:20:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828142031.GA10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin : presented in an earlier message. : The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis. As in: : R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the : application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. : Would you please explain how and/or why? This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an observer. See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur, not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half of the label on the "almond milk". But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat? Tangent: : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk... WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats and the milk were cooked together. As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar. After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to wait to eat. The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's. (My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?) Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs. But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked them together? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:06:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (MorrisIsaacson via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog Message-ID: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) Thank you, Moshe Isaacson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:20:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the : sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk : that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that : milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us : that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would : have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would : have been protected from those other ingredients... This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out something else... According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is that of kosher species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of the milking. Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched by a Yisrael. Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly, neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy more than chazal's taqanah. For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's ruling exempting powdered milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent > adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still > applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched > by a Yisrael. > > Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 10:52:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa : lechumra. Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines right above your comment. (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about without the gezeira. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:52:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828155218.GC10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote: : Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated : with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't resplond when you asked on another forum.) Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid. The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and Tzefaniah 2:14. But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol to it. The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll", because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French. Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would share that metaphor. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. > > : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash > : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa > : lechumra. > Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal > visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing > "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. > So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines > right above your comment. He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah. And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5fe6203e-5ca3-2df7-9dc4-ab23193ca9e8@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF > held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus > inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping kashrus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:18:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:18:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have : done. I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:50:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7a7271fd-d51c-6efc-2eb8-8d88dc02bf52@sero.name> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose > : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need > : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have > : done. > > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further supervision is needed. I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care about reshus. What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his employees or guests. The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours from the bottle into his cup. And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. So what makes it CY? This can be further split into two scenarios: (1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision. It was CY lim'hadrin from the moment of milking until this nochri bought it. But now it isn't. (2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at one point it was already in reshus yisroel. In other words, there was more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from the bottle. Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus nochri? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 15:07:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? In-Reply-To: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> References: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170828220709.GH31841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the : bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') : is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, : an eclipse is not included in this list... The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of an eclipse is for others, not Jews. BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah? Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said? I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im (mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see Creation in it but can't. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 13:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828202847.GG31841@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature : calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow : and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as : Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. ... : But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar : and non-Tzon, this non-animal? : Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence : my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You went over my head. I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73. So what are you asking? ... : Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, : the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even : if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur : will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and CAN be chal on it. As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type fatty deposits? Where this question is coming from: My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of a chayah is permissible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 17:25:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:25:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances Message-ID: Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis. He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined by the names we use to identify things. But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as far as I can tell, has not been addressed. Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the facts of the Halacha. I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by. We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino, is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste? Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop - stop trying to force the round peg. I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined. = = = = = Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked with milk from the Pesikta he quotes. Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, it must still be Halachically coherent. Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats. - - - - - Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained why there is no MA to cook these with dairy. He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different names even in English. Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are. Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi. Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim, take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is explaining. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:10:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:10:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? Message-ID: The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The answer is Yes and also No There is an Issur to eat Neveila but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat - RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2 Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah. Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by the Gemara, Chullin 58a. A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar, a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo. After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before being incubated] from unfertilised eggs. Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif]. Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it. What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision must be made, which is ZVZGo. BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa. Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher chickens when they hatch. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 16:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh Message-ID: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds." Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 19:54:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which conclusions may be drawn. > Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when > HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until > they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection > and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was permitted to them. But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 05:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it (and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead) However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers. They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish. Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container with CS. How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)? (they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 08:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ab46d6f-e25f-3389-5dea-28aabefa26c1@sero.name> On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they > are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were > growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the > eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] Then why not say the same of the hen's meat? It too was mostly grown before it became a tereifah! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 12:52:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh In-Reply-To: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> References: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170829195223.GA27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, : assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? : Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as : Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in : Hebrew. TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error tragic; I wonder if it's common. I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers: Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds... until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud. Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad. The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados". The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 13:32:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170829203231.GB27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold : that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the : status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan : according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their : keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the : absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all : kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his : descendants! Not to mention all benei Racheil. Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before we were true Benei Yisrael. Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a "nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah. Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other. Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as an issur chamur. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 30 12:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:48:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments Message-ID: A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933: As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . (Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues) We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address. It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure way of life that would bring us to God's light. The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps. Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split. A couple of notes: 1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause. 2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other personal sin), he had this in mind. 3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely within the Clal doing the sin. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 06:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 07:44:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it > sounds like "original sin." YL And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:35:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170831233516.GB22179@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me :> it sounds like "original sin." YL : : Did you think only Xians beleived : in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our : view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the : guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"... The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach. Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos, all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin. Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 12:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America Message-ID: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus see there for more background: On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land... On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein... REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US. Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6: Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them, they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness, not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished, as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia. Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain, without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with our very eyes ... This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel] was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150 years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather, that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times. (Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America being a "medinah shel chessed.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:43:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have several comments. The OU writes: > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > the home for Shabbos. Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs of the home." In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting the lights is part of that! The OU continues: > The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. > Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to > sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama), > women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to > me it sounds like "original sin." I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I think that's all the Tur is saying. It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive from the same event. Finally, the OU writes: > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > the wicks will easily catch fire. It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be *more* difficult to light later on. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 18:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:57:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh Message-ID: NEVEILAH Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the prohibition to eat Neveilah It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2 However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah. I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by Halacha so why is it Assur to eat it? MARIS AYIN The following are universally accepted 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha and even Minhag 2] AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta] 3] AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA? I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal. and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats, even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA. The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah - Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not. Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has no direct Halachic component to it Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a reflection of Halacha. Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden. Please provide some sources. As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is also predicated upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim. As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish? ISSUR BBCh I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor - only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook. The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out - the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:06:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:06:02 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a little bit will do] That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However, for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen. The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:00:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb'al peh Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression > that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may > disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no > one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within > the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from > Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions > made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that > seem problematic to our minds." > > Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, > assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not > so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies > as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent > in Hebrew. I could respond in any of several ways. Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial. I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash, until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that Nach is also included.) Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural sources, and with hardly any logical arguments. Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin: What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his stereotypes about mishnayos.) This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion, and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our practice is XYZ. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 22:23:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? Ben On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system > of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to > see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or > murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow > one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and > speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 06:49:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org>, <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. Kvct Joel rich > On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? > > Ben > >> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system >> of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to >> see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or >> murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow >> one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and >> speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkampgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:45:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based ideology. But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses. I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate, interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need. So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:58:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ > Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas > haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's > because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something. Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive, and they recognized this. The implications for today are self-evident. As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the Zionists actively fought against religious practice. -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:11:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote: : That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I : don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:19:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:19:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict so many murderers. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:27:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901152729.GI31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so : that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power : and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, : false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why : we continue to remember Amalek. R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8) RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can can pass as soon as we stop being a threat. Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as chinam. So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah. This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on what they did, and not let it Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't, why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred we feel once we realize they hate us back. The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how to address sin'as chinam. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:27:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only > superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any > other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't > mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it > became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly > damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:08:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:08:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias" and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell "Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote: : As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign : names? As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations. The use of : aleph and ayin always makes things interesting. The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE 126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them. It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.) My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud. There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef; patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud. On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued: :> The very point I was trying to make is that yes, : I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an : English word into Hebrew. : If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1 : spelling. Especially for more complicated names. As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)... There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others. I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself. The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide English sounds among the established transliterations. "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the "j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and an English "ch". The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or "Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's where I could see debate. Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only said by some who know her? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:59:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4318c19f-0790-10f1-6bab-106d72e8dd9b@sero.name> On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/ thing for the "j". The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi teshuvot discuss it. IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it was spelt gimel yud. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:34:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:34:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The role of gematria, and remez in general In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <488600f7-ef1c-3adb-b551-f3c00f739ff9@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170901163421.GC28962@aishdas.org> >From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria itself reached Avodah topicality. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim: > True. But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li > pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see > how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that. > R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other > opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not > one of them methods used to darshan Torah. And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:" : Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves : use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah... What is the role of Remez? We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh -- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.) Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat in the pasuq. And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod". But remez? What's it for? It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f004425-548e-142a-90de-48c5e91769b8@sero.name> On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. [Email #2] On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:24:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901172407.GB14196@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means : they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which would either mean: 1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency. Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't try to fix what you can? 2- They felt they were insufficient in skill. Or a third or fourth possibility. I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death. Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment. And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9, the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death. He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then. R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin" which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time getting permission to execute someone than they did. But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi wrong. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:52:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote: > > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > > the home for Shabbos. > >Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. >The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was >"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a >level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why >this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, >because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs >of the home." > >In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting >the lights is part of that! Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) >Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be >in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do >something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I >think that's all the Tur is saying. You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness, >Finally, the OU writes: > > > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > > the wicks will easily catch fire. > >It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully >understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain >piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and >difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a >charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. >In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be >counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be >*more* difficult to light later on. Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:32:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:32:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412cee4b-73a8-f3ae-bd8f-d8051cb68646@sero.name> On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually > oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:03:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, from Jewish breakaway groups). Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). Another (lesser known one): the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha. (IIRC, the S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.) My question is this: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and something comparable in secular life. Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from some other group/idealogy? (E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of it's Nazi association. But I'm looking for a better and more relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't a common design anyway)). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:07:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we : are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some : sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and : something comparable in secular life. Something so direct, it's not even an analogy. Jewish: Yichud. Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the opposite gender. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:17:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> >The following are universally accepted >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all >Halacha and even Minhag Is this the case? According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm , the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos). He also mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613. (As they each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) ) So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? (In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or so. So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did the general opinion change? Or did it?) -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 02:39:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:39:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath Message-ID: Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel during their Shabbath? Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, text (SMS) or WhatsApp? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 12:09:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality.? So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 03:38:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 06:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . I wrote: > In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then > lighting the lights is part of that! and R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of > homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? > ... > Given that roles today are much different than they were in > the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles > should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I > am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive. I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For example, if non-family are present, some might consider this non-tzniyus. But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other. > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which > are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights > with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is > no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem > with Shabbos neiros? As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that does not apply to Chanukah. My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 04:08:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: . R' Sholom Simon asked: > Can anybody think of a secular (ideally, American) law or > common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish > ourselves from some other group/idealogy? R' Micha Berger's response of yichud is a great example of where secular society has grasped the importance of gezeros which help protect us from ourselves. Similarly, secular society understands the concept of Mar'is Ayin and Chashad, and they express this in the term "Appearance of impropriety". (There's even a short Wikipedia page with that title.) But I don't think either of these is what RSS was asking for. He wants examples where the purpose is specifically: > in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, > from Jewish breakaway groups). > > Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos > (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). The answer that first came to my mind is that the original American colonists adopted various practices to distinguish themselves from their European origins. I'm sure there were others, but the main one that comes to my mind is the spelling differences between British and American English. For example, the Wikipedia article "Comparison of American and British English" says: "One particular contribution towards formalizing these differences came from Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionary (published 1828) with the intention of showing that people in the United States spoke a different dialect from Britain, much like a regional accent." Akiva Miller PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, where we are uneqivocally supposed to do it one way, but the other way is grudgingly acceptable after the fact. (Speeding limits are *not* a good example of this. The policeman will probably not stop you for going slightly over the limit, but he certainly could. That would be a Chetzi Shiur at most - a clear violation, even if not a punishable one.) If anyone has good examples, please start a new thread. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 06:07 PM 9/1/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >Jewish: Yichud. >Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy >about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the >opposite gender. Thanks -- but I'm looking more for something that is intended to separate us (us "regular Americans" -- whatever that is) from a people or nation or ideology that we find distasteful. An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). I'm looking for a law or practice that *separates/distinguishes" (havdil) - your example is more like a "fence." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest example I can think of is not secular. Mennonite (including Amish) men shave their moustaches to express their rejection of all things military, because when their customs were formed soldiers wore moustaches. > PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that > is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, There's the principle "de mimimis non curat lex", but that's more like chatzi shiur, which civil law considers mutar lechatchila. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:15:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <657b8edc-97f8-5fa2-45c9-7efe94200b60@sero.name> On 02/09/17 05:39, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel > during their Shabbath? > > Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, > text (SMS) or WhatsApp? If you know they won't break shabbos to read it, or at least you don't know they will break shabbos to read it, then I don't see a problem. "Ee ata metzuveh al shevisas keilim". It's not shabbos for you; it is shabbos for the remote instrument that you are manipulating, but that is not a problem. The same would apply to operating a waldo that's in a place where it's shabbos; it's shevisas keilim, which BH says is not a thing. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:28:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: <12a7adb9-e48c-7af7-3fb2-7ee96c2a3799@sero.name> On 02/09/17 15:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue > here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a > reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and > Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but > it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand > that we live in this reality. But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:51:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:51:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (1:4) writes: "When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel ... They would come to the Beis Din at the entrance to the Azara. If they knew [the din] they would tell them, if not everyone went into the Beis Din and asked. ... If the matter was not clear to the Beis Din they would discuss the issue until all agreed or they they would take a vote and follow the majority and tell the petitioners this is the halacha" The Rambam is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 88 which states the following: "At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Beis Din Hagadol. The Beis Din Hagadol was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah). If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide. After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai)." There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the Tannaim, the Gemara in fact related that they left their place in the Lishkas ha'Gazis 40 years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. If so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol in existence? 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:23:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: , <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: From: Sholom Simon Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:17 PM > The following are universally accepted > 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha > and even Minhag > Is this the case? ... > So... what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone > accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? As in many things, the Rambam seems not to have been noticed. This is distressing, because the Rambam tries to present things according to halokho, not according to medrash. As he says in his introduction to the Tenth Pereq of Sanhedrin in Perush haMishnayot, medrash is almost never to be taken literally, but rather comes to teach us things (but says that most Jews don't understand that). For halakhic purposes, the Rambam explains in Hil. M'lakhim 9:1, that Adam haRishon observed 6 things that he was commanded. One was added after the Mabbul, so yielding 7 mitzvos that Noah and his descendents were commanded to observe. Avraham Avinu was also commanded concerning Milah, and he took upon himself the obligation to daven Shacharit. Yitzchak added another two, and Ya'aqov another two. When rabbis say that Avraham observed all 613 Mitvot, it is obviously not meant literally: many, many of the 613 only came into force after King Shlomo built the BhM. Before that, there were a whole set of other mitzvot (such as that the Kohanim and only the Kohanim wereto take apart and assemble the Mishkan, and that the L'viyim and only the L'viyim were to carry the parts of the Mishkan). These were commandments from HQBH, but not part of the set of 613. When the BhM was built, those mitzvot disappeared and new mitzvot, which are part of the 613 count, came into effect. So before that no one "observed" the 613. And some of the 613 are only applicable to Kohanim, and some only to L'viyim, and some only to Yisra'elim, so there was no person ever who observed or could observe all 613 mitzvot. So when we say nowadays that Jews are commanded to observe 613 mitzvot it does not mean that any person is commanded to observe all 613; it means that there exist 613 mitzvot. Every Jew is commanded to learn all 613, however. So it is possible that the Avot learned all 613. But most of them were not technically mitzvot then, because they were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and before that no one was commanded to do them. So what does the Torah mean when it says that Avraham observed "mishmarti, mitzvotai,chuqqotai v'torotai" (sic, not "toratei) in Chapter 26? The same thing that it means in 18:19 "for I know him, that he will command his children and his house after him to obeserve the way of the Lord." There is no question that Avraham Avinu was ALSO commanded to observe what Chazal include in the term "Derekh Eretz" and the Rambam explicates in Hil. De'ot Pereq 6, which included such basic things as proper behavior and middot (and one of the main goals of the Aishdas organization, and nowadays is called "mussar"). Chazal say that all of those things have to come before Torah, i.e. before learning rest of the Torah. And, as Micha the founder of Aishdas can tell you better than anyone, there are so many, many things that one has to learn and focus on to observe these most basic of the commandments. So Avraham would have had his hands full teaching people those. Did he also learn all the mitzvot that would be given later? He was a novi, and so perhaps could, but one cannot say that he "observed" them in the literal sense, because how could one "observe" a law that had not yet been instituted and was not even applicable? Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 17:39:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when : American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. : (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their national ethnicity. I think this topic has become non-PC. Nationalism is even a dirty word in some circles; viewed as faschism, or fascism-lite. You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without running afoul of rules about discussing politics? But I hope that at least relating the two topics will provide something to think about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 10:58:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel > and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the > Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din > Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority and passed their 18 gezeros. The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the period of the zugos. Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 12:44:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:44:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > >> 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel >> and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the >> Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din >> Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. >> > > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority > and passed their 18 gezeros. That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. > The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. > Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the > period of the zugos. Yes that is exactly the question. Why didn't they resolve all of the Machlokes in the Mishnayos. > Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the > other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. Wouldn't that violate the issur of lo tasuguru mipnei ish? > > > -- > Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, > zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 18:14:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7333f45e-37cb-8ad0-ca8f-bffbb68048f8@gmail.com> Sun, 3 Sep 2017 Marty Bluke asked: > ...The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the > Tannaim... > so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence > there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students > had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol > in existence? > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and > Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? > Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for > most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. By '''in existence,'' the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The English-language Jewish history books that have been published over the past few decades follow this model. I have also done so in ''The Dynamics of Dispute,'' (Judaica Press) Chapter 10, ''The Control and Proliferation of Machlokess, Keeping the Torah One.'' Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 01:59:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:59:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:01:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> On 05/09/17 04:59, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both > David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never > attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females must be killed as well. Your question of how Agag's descendants, conceived the night before he was killed, managed to become so numerous so quickly applies here too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:17:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? Message-ID: According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. However, others disagree. Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/yblaj8cu If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:49:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:49:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it > into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? > Greek changed a lot over the centuries. I'm not sure if it even existed as a language at the time of Joshua, and the Greek alphabet was certainly much later. If Greek was the one of the languages the Torah was translated into then it would probably have been unrecognizable in the Hellenistic period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 09:17:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> On 05/09/17 11:17, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate > it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? 1. Ptolemy, not Alexander. 2. 72 sages, not 70. 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) exist today? 4. Even if the writing did still exist, would whatever passed for Greek in 1271 BCE have been intelligible in 271 BCE? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:36:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:36:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/5/2017 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. > However, others disagree. ... > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 > languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages > to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek > translation? Well, for one thing, it was Ptolemy, rather than Alexander. But for another, maybe it wasn't necessary. Perhaps if they'd simply asked for the authoritative Greek translation, they'd have gotten it, and any number of distortions of the Torah caused by the Septuagint wouldn't have happened. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:20:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> References: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170905182040.GB2253@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:17:10PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the : writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure : to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) : exist today? Rishonim on Yehoshua also argue how many such monuments there were. For example Rashi (at least as explained in Gur Aryeih) has three copies: one in the Yaedrin, one on the mizbeiach on Har Eivel (which is named in Devarim) and one at Gilgal. AND there is a machloqes tanna'im (Sotah 35b) about how they were written. But I think both shitos hold they were engraced. R' Shimon says that the stones were plastered, and then the words were engraved into the plaster. R' Yehudah held the stones were engraved, and then plastered on top of them. R' Yehudah's position sounds like it's describing more permanent writing, but how would you get to see it? You would not only need to peel off the plaster, the plaster could well get into the engraved letters. To address the original question: Ezra haSofer used majority to produce the mesoretic text, leaving us with a sefer that didn't match any of the copies found. Why didn't he check the Hebrew copy/ies from the monunemnt(s)? Wouldn't a text engraved by people who met MRAH be more authoritative than any of them? (All this assuming, as is the post I'm replying to, that they contained the whole Torah. That is the shitah we're trying to understand, no?) So it would seem to me that just as we have no idea how to find this monument / these monuments, even if the writing is still legible, they were already unavailable in Ezra's day. Unsurprising, given how much more pragmatic and used knowledge was lost. And even if they did know where to find it, either the writing wore off the plaster, or perhaps the plaster was too embedded after all those centuries to be picked off to read the stone. Regardless of the shift in Greek, the stones weren't even usable when the target was the original Hebrew. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170905184626.GC2253@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:17:58PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >The following are universally accepted : >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all : >Halacha and even Minhag : : Is this the case? In a footnote to one of his father-in-law's maamarim, RMMS (the LR), writes that this is meant that they did so "beruchnius, velo begashmius": Some mitzvos they "only" fulfilled the point of the mitzvah without physically doing the mitzvah. E.g. tefillin, with its mention of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. Others, they did perform the mitzvah physically, but still they only did so to accomplish the ruchnius -- it was only incidentally physical, and only sometimes in the same form. See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31608&st=&pgnum=137 For example (not given there), the Zohar links Yaaqov's spotted sticks and changing the coats of sheep to the mitzvah of tefillin. But the sticks didn't become qadosh, because uplifting and redeeming the gashmi wasn't part of the plan. There is more in Liqutei Sichos on Lekh Lekha www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/68627/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Lech-Lecha.htm Given RMMS's relationship to shitas Rashi, and our stereotype that chassidus tends to take maximalist positions, I thought this position would be somewhat interesting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 13:30:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:30:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> Message-ID: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females > must be killed as well. How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what the mitzvah and the dinim were? Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently no one informed him. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 20:43:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 05/09/17 16:30, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females >> must be killed as well. > > How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what > the mitzvah and the dinim were? They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 07:45:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:43:20PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe : taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of : "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in : front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never : knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so : angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. BB 21b. I think he concluded said rebbe (Yoav) did it as intentional ziyuf, not an error. R Mordechai Breuer concludes that the semichut (i.e. the "X of Y" form of the word for X) for "zakhar" could follow a variant conjugation and come out "zekher". And while it's hard to picture confusing "z'khar" and "zeikher", "zekher" and "zeikher" is much easier. The "zekher" vs "zeikher" debate over what the Gra had for Parashas Zakhor was over which means the Gra's intent was to tell us the word means "reminder / memorial" rather than "memory". The mesorah is "zeikher". But if zekher could mean both "males of" and "memory of", the mistake is VERY easy. (Not that RMB would worry about the possibility of the Gra disagreeing with the mesoretic niqud.) But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? It's strange. In our culture, it would be the "hot topic" of study for the weeks leading into the war... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 11:48:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > error. No. Why would he do that? The Rishonim discuss whether the rebbe himself didn't know the correct pronunciation, or whether he knew it and therefore taught it corrrectly, but didn't pay enough attention to how each boy was pronouncing it, so never noticed that young Yoav had misheard him and was reading "z'char". > But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 15:51:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an : >error. : No. Why would he do that? A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't get clarification /before/ the war? And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most of the animals? Actually, if you figure the remaining animals were for qorbanos, he was planning on all them being killed. A random reenactment of Yericho? Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 19:12:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> On 06/09/17 18:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > : >error. > > : No. Why would he do that? > > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. I don't understand why you keep bringing David up. What does he have to do with this story? The story is about Yoav, not David. And I repeat my question, why would Yoav's rebbe intentionally corrupt the pasuk? Why would Yoav even suspect him of it? > :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? > > : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. So how does that make Yoav a gadol? > And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? Why would it even occur to him that Yoav had such a misunderstanding? > And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most > of the animals? Do you mean Shaul? Perhaps Yoav didn't know the details of what had happened all those years ago. In fact how many people ever knew about Shmuel's rebuke of Shaul? It may have been secret by the king's order, and not spoken about, so Yoav may never even have heard of it. > Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when > it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Again, Yoav thought he had it right. He didn't even know that there was anything he needed to ask. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 00:02:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi@opengemara.org via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3FF2B345-8199-48FC-A3BD-6A89FC2540F9@opengemara.org> On September 6, 2017 3:51pm PDT, Micha Berger wrote: ... > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. .. >: Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? The Gemara (Bava Basra 21b) says that the issue was "???? ???? ????? ?' ???? [arur oseh melekhes H' remiyah -mb]" -- that the teacher should be more attentive (also, it fits into the Sugya there -- that a teacher who is medayek is better than one who's fast). Also, there's a machlokes in Sanhedrin if Yoav was a good person who made mistakes or if he was evil but found Dovid Hamelech to strong. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 09:45:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:45:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: R' Martin Bluke asked: > 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says > hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash > states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night > and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. > > However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought > Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if > Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David > and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to > wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out Amalek. First the data: * The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters. * The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh * As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's Pelishti stronghold. * Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a problem. So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul. Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans, but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert. So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them, because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites, Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself. Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command. Ad kaan. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 11:15:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Practices of the Tochacha" Message-ID: Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well written and very interesting. http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 12:54:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170907195348.KNNX30763.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: >: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when >: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. >: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). > >Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have >recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken >to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their >national ethnicity. . . . > >You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without >running afoul of rules about discussing politics? Perhaps. Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable with respect to Americans and the American Revolution! Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 14:24:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170907212448.GC15354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? : http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation: All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 15:38:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170907223856.GD15354@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" : d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its : mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? : : Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, : but we don't hold like him. Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4. It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20. ... : We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from : Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus : seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's : significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, : suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later (you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted the gezeira. Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely. : So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev, not so much. I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo" was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo" rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get that conclusion from "sevasheil". And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim lemiqra. But it crashed down. Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 23:55:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> Message-ID: Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks with him the rest of life. Ben On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there > was anything he needed to ask. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 11:55:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 13:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:06:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote: : I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw : it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather : than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," : just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. R Mordechai Breuer On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote: : How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him : what the mitzvah and the dinim were? : Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous : mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know : that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently : no one informed him. And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav was strongly deferential to David. Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the questions as to why. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 14:02:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything > about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a > unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav > was strongly deferential to David. I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. Suppose you're a caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which includes liver. You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, and I agree. You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 9 19:13:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur Message-ID: RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh [but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein Issur Chal Al Issur. So how is it that RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 03:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: > By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' > Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources > that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol > could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and > Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam says? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:18:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to function normally. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:43:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:43:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the > time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to > function normally. And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way. The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin was not functioning normally. [Email #2. -micha] One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 07:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91da4a07-6dcd-bc04-b9e0-38326532931d@sero.name> On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod to both sides. (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 10:02:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : While there may have : been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, : why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam : says? Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin, when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin. (Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.) So, what happened? My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed resolution by higher courts. IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 15:32:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45eac523-5fc8-1a2c-0c9a-256d54c2e054@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700), when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704, while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate, and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards. There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows Beis Hillel. Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become the standard one. All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 20:42:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> Message-ID: <6c5042b2-7703-92b5-e001-b2e5bc111010@zahav.net.il> In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these issues when instructing the soldiers? Ben On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 01:20:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the > one on smicha What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. [Email #2] On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different > conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed > resolution by higher courts. > > IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. > > To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of > valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 06:23:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha" > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. No, they weren't. BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they started in the very last years before it, when things were far from normal functioning. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170911151131.GF24527@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? : Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis : Sheini. But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis. I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a "veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule. The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer. Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq, for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al devarav, for even these greats weren't. So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the best answer to your question. And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to the late amoraim? Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why (leshitas haRambam) the question was still around? : On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. :> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of :> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? : The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white : approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim : "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything : in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying : that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini. (Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's just projecting.) There is a difference between 1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah saying it means the last two are in reversed order; and 2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this idea would be kosher. The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin. And yet, multiple norms would co-exist. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the destruction of Bayit Sheni. Lisa On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis > Sheini. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 07:13:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories Message-ID: <20170911141302.GB24527@aishdas.org> Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav in a different direction. I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the "q" in "Amaleiq".) : I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported : wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher : Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where : we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history. : Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint : in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious : revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of : anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where : the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in : order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal : add a story that isn't needed. : Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or : pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some : of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising, : but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read : historically, I wonder. I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.) Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened" the criteria for such categorization? If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories that defy how the world works. (And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who accept miracles.) In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures. Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid. IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh and av deis din derelict in his duty? The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because they're only ahistoric. I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from within the midrashic-story system. So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..." While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise" far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:54:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty. Rabbi Akiva lived at the > time of the Bar Kochva revolt. R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later. The > vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the > destruction of Bayit Sheni. While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 17:20:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, > Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was > Nasi in Yavneh)" And how many of those feature in any machlokos? Hillel & Shammai had only three, beside the long-running one on smicha. > These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel & Shammai do. Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to dispute? > Hillel and Shammai were certainly > well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their > students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo ra'u". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 18:19:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:19:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 07:02:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? Message-ID: <1505224922640.65779@stevens.edu> Please see the video at http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb produced by the Harabonim of Queens YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 20:16:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:16:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? In-Reply-To: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe > the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were > gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". > Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of > machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the > teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the > lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on! As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one). Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF. * HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim, 1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130 concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora. (All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 08:49:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? Message-ID: <1505317742192.42683@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40) writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until thirteen and a half minutes after sunset. The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 11:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (hankman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:11:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Message-ID: R. Zvi Lampel wrote: ?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help?? CM responds: Yup, I imagine that would be the concordance in his head! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 06:28:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= Message-ID: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 08:54:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:54:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170914155423.GD26813@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av : even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but... Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 09:44:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach In-Reply-To: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> References: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170914164428.GA4289@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is : applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, : might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?.. I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981) count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei. So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod. While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such "tolados". : Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own : law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven? I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of authority is granted. There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of a Noachide court under dinim: The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society. This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10) and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid (Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim 10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim" includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law needs to look like. But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the other 6. This is shitas haRambam (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land. See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 11:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> Message-ID: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min : ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger : (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin was a meat thing in particular. But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the brain. (* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're the consensus, by sheer number.) If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration. It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort to obtain the treif milk. R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:00:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> References: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4636649d-ed8e-bc04-6e80-c299a962507c@sero.name> On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash > et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case > to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. > Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held > like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" > understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, > not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the > brain. You have the PC and CS reversed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1505420943267.43919@stevens.edu> Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170914201537.GB11862@aishdas.org> First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to R Akiva Miller's second post first. On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote: : As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that : takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real : halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the : lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, : but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that : does not apply to Chanukah. I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT) is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function of neis Shabbos. IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation" as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her feel less that she is shouldering the list alone. Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote: : Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. : The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was : "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a : level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why : this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, : because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs : of the home." Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..." But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah kavsah neiro shel olam connection.) The MB too... So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU cites, "only" the nesei keilim. : In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting : the lights is part of that! Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where women can consistently be homemakers..." The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way. BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't know what to make of that. Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular social state? This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book "Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law" https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing, and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes. One paragraph: Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways. The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point: according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations in a range of mitzvot! Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't know): Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal family unit. RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the thesis: Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical, and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single sex. He did not do so. ... Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family, we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids. So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed social structure. RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers, among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular kinds of social structure over others. ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with a husband and wife at the core. ... Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for, community units that comprise family units which comprise individual units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis. A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is so much to say about it. Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield: Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are -- and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 14:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170914210406.GB10180@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote: : There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): : 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the : Tannaim... According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im. According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion) it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over a dechuyah rule). So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and both talmuds. : 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and : Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? To sum up: 1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah. : Why did they let Machlokes fester? ... 2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted, or cannot be taken at face value. a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from the lishkas hagazis. Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post: b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should. And I suggested: c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that distinguishes between them. And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote: : > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won : > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority : > and passed their 18 gezeros. : That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed : group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It : sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either mean - number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5) - number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT sham) So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that would explain why they too got counted. But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 09:28:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:28:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> >From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss : Question: If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition. Answer: He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like an average person, and certainly not Maaser. If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur cholim, miqvah, shuls... I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of the rest of the community. Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. (I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to help, I would appreciate it.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 11:15:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? --------------------- From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 12:22:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170915192219.GD11421@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - : cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools (and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave them some guidelines for defining what that is. But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the complexity of their definition. And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/ poseiq would tell you to compute your share? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 17 07:08:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is the Customer Always Right? Message-ID: <95.E3.03036.1028EB95@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 15:19:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:19:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha > B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to > have a minyan? I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, as compared to wwithout a minyan. I thought that we say it Motzaei Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few days are left and we fear running out of time. Both reasons are even more relevant on Motzaei Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 21:39:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a25b83f-173e-6448-5511-011515a4e304@sero.name> On 18/09/17 18:19, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, > as compared to wwithout a minyan. Without a minyan one can't say the kaddish. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 01:56:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tuitiion Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: RMB wrote: > Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: > Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, > is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW > described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the > differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other > urgent causes? > I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one > may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if > promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are > currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: It is meritorious to support Torah scholars, and you may dedicate a portion of your [maaser kesafim] funds even to support one's own son studying Torah. You may likewise use a portion of these funds to pay for the your adult children's yeshiva gedola, midrasha and college tuition, but you should not draw on these funds for paying tuition while in elementary or high school. [1] However, someone lives a modest lifestyle and still cannot otherwise make ends meet, may draw on these funds even to pay for a portion of his minor children's Jewish day school tuition. [2] Someone who benefits from a scholarship at an institution of Jewish education should prioritize that institution when giving charity, over other institutions. [3] 1: Chatam Sofer YD 249 2: Igrot Moshe YD2 ?113, but Aruch haShulchan YD 249:7 disagrees 3: Oral ruling by Rav Hershel Schachter It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka. I once sent my kids to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we are discussing, since it is a poor community). -- Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 11:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral Message-ID: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> An Aish article notes: >The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >within them. There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first appear in Jewish thought?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 13:33:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom Message-ID: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> The most commonly cited reason that we say "oseh hashalom" rather than "oseh shalom" in kaddish during the 10 days, is that the gematria of hashalom is equivalent to the gematria of Safriel, the malach that "writes" us into the Book. (I just recently read somewhere else: "Hagahos Mordechai [Miseches Rosh Hashanah 720 he states as follows: Safiriel is the Gematria of Oseh and Oseh is the Gematria of Hashalom. Alternatively this hints to the kindness of Hashem that swerves the judgment to merit in a case that the sins and merits are equal, and the verse states "Maaseh Hatzedaka Shalom"." (I don't understand this second reason: the "sholom" in that last phrase doesn't have a "hey") I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their other reasons I am missing?) KvCT! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their > other reasons I am missing?) Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter counts. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:40:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <6d0c6039-0428-0174-88ec-0724ad47e1a5@sero.name> On 19/09/17 14:48, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >> forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >> Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >> imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >> within them. I assume this is in the context of a discussion of the way people in ancient times used to see time as cyclical rather than as progressing, as we moderns see it. > I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. > > Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first > appear in Jewish thought?) The idea that specific days have fixed properties that repeat every time they come around is found everywhere in Chazal. They took it completely for granted, and of course it fits into the cyclical way the ancients saw all of time. But it's clear from the Torah that they *didn't* see time as cyclical. So the author of this article uses the spiral to explain how they did see it. But it's impossible to discuss this entire subject without the insight that there are different ways to see time, and without the two models -- cyclical and progressive -- to contrast, and to propose syntheses as this author does. Chazal did not have the historical perspective to be aware of this whole dichotomy. I suspect they were unaware that the nochrim of their era didn't see time as they did, and that the nochrim were just as unaware that Jews didn't see time as *they* did. Only looking back from 2000 years later is this difference apparent, and we can discuss how the Torah's progressive view of history can be reconciled with dates repeating themselves, by using the spiral analogy. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 08:45:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170925154550.GC23052@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important : >as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, : >are their other reasons I am missing?) : Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the : first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter : counts. At least both the Chassidei Ashkenaz and the Tur held it was. There is no evidence of this line of thought any closer to the actual start of Nusach Ashkenaz. And a number of the Tur's word counts are dependent on flavor of Nusach Ashkenaz. Could well be that the significance is itself part of a bigger machloqes. They could also be taken as post-facto kavvanos, a way keep in mind a pasuq that colors what we mean by the baqashah, rather than causitive. It is interesting to me that the violation of word count gematrios in Nusach Ashkenaz is largely among Chassidim, who we culturally associate as the community most likely to deal in such remez. Except perhaps for Chida and Ben Ish Hai influenced Sepharadim, but they didn't have a nusach that made such claims to ask why they would choose to leave it. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 05:38:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:38:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? Message-ID: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, and what HKB"H wants from us: Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot switch its use). GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 09:30:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 25/09/17 08:38, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, > and what HKB?H wants from us: > Rama Y?D 249:13 (my free translation) ? In any event one shouldn?t > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won?t he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz ? so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 10:19:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:19:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: We change "min kol" to "mikol" to make up for the addition of the extra "l'eila".? So that the word count stays the same.? So yes, we see this kind of thing everywhere, including kaddish. Lisa On 9/19/2017 11:33 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria.? Do we see that elsewhere?? (Or, are > their other reasons I am missing?) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- I leave it to the readers to project if people put a name on as a form of bragging (separate question - is it intent or what observer's perceive that counts?) It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the item is not in danger of being switched in use? GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:29:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170925182902.GA16613@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:37PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An Aish article notes: :> The Jewish model of time is a spiral... : There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it : was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. : The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time : (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. : I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. There is no source, but it's a pretty compelling conclusion given Chazal's description of mo'eid, or chayav kol adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo repeating yetzi'as Mitzrayim annually OT1H, and yet OTOH speaking of history as inexorably running from Adam to the messianic era (and beyond). We might be the first generation consciously aware enough of the issue to think about our use of both language that implies circular time and that of linear time to want to make a synthesis "helical time". (True YU alumni would insist there is no helical time. Meaning comes from the tension of the dialectic; there is no syntheis. ) I don't question the value of lomdus, even though it is utilizing patterns in halakhah or halachic dialectic that weren't made explicit. Yes, that creates a change of error, but when the explanation is strong enough, do we reject the whole concept because the Rambam never spoke about gavra vs cheftza on topics other than oaths? Think how much hashkafah, or specifically Qabbalah, is drawn from just this kind of finding a theory to explain existing statements. This helical time is typical. So, is it a modern chiddush? That isn't a boolean question... to the extent you find this intepretation muchrach, it's inherent in what came bafore. And the the extent you don't, v.v. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:58:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>> Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't :>> glorify oneself with the charity he gives... :> Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their :> donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item :> donated... ... : It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the : item is not in danger of being switched in use? I am personally bothered when there is so much text on the paroches or cloth on the bimah (term?) that it detracts from the aesthetics. I am also bothered when more space is spent naming the donors than naming and perhaps lauding the person in whose memory the donation was given. That said... I think the consensus is that things have fallen to the point that we have two offsetting values that outweigh this ill: 1- When the choice is between collecting multiples more money with giving out honors vs operating on a shoestring and having to cut corners by only taking more purely motivated donations, the extra tzedaqah given is a mitzvah that outweights the alternative. 2- Even someone who has pure motives and wants to give quietly is living in a society that will respond positively if his donation is made public and influences the community. Peer pressure isn't just for teenagers. I think it's parallel to choosing chalitzah as a first choice. It's clear from the pasuq and the content of the ritual that chalitzah is something that in the ideal no one should be encouraged to choose. But as Abba Shaul noted, we don't live in that ideal world, and what was second-rate has become (centuries later) mandatory practice. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 12:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170925190253.GE16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, : as compared to without a minyan... We make a point of demonstrating communal unity in the middle. "Shalom Aleikhem!" Not speaking halachically, as you aren't obligated to greet 9 men, or even really greet anyone. But still... Aside from Zev's example of getting one more qaddish, which is a nice but incidental advantage, it seems to me that QL itself leans toward being a tzibur thing. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:34:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Ben On 9/19/2017 12:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I thought that we say it Motzaei > Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few > days are left and we fear running out of time. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:09:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:09:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <761520c3-faea-cd38-8ba8-ee24f675b3b7@sero.name> On 25/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > cloth on the bimah (term?) mappah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 03:39:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <046338f8-991f-2216-c55d-6002821d57a1@sero.name> On 26/09/17 01:34, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of > Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a > shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Not everyone does that, in fact some don't even say it on Shabbat, and wait until Shavuot. So zrizin doesn't necessarily override avelut. Also many don't do kidush levana until after 7 days from the molad, by which time we're into the deeper avelut. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 06:45:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170926134541.GB23180@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:34:30AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the : 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? ... I am confused. Isn't the implication simply that all else being equal, do it earlier because zerizin, but aveilus is sufficient for not considering all else equal? Why does zerizus being applicable mean that it is necessarily the most urgent halachic principle coming into play? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 11:54:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Over on Areivim, we were yet again discussing the cRc's position that one should not buy coffee from a full Starbucks store that sells food. Here's my take, cut-n-pasted from what I posted there. ... There is a lot of ham and bacon at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=hot-breakfast and poultry at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=sandwiches-panini-and-wraps The cRc's statement refers to these in particular . It also questions your assumption of the ubiquitous use of soap: Chicago Rabbinical Council Guide to Starbucks Beverages May 2013 / June 2015 ... As said, Starbucks shops serve many kosher and non-kosher items, with the most serious non-kosher item being hot meat sandwiches. The standard daily clean-up at Starbucks includes a hot wash of all utensils and some parts of that washing are done without soap. This clean up process significantly challenges the kosher status of the otherwise kosher products and each product must be judged by a competent halachic authority. The cRc has made available their detailed review and analysis of this topic in the spring 2011 edition of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and that article can be found below. Click here to read this article. The good news is that there are many Starbucks locations that do not serve hot meat sandwiches. These are generally the Starbucks kiosks which can be defined as a Starbucks location, usually found in a mall, retail store, a bus or train station or airport, that does not sell hot sandwiches. The cRc is comfortable recommending any drink made from kosher ingredients (even though some others use ingredients that may not be kosher). This list is accurate at this time for stores in the United States based on two and a half years of extensive research and consultation with the cRc's Av Beth Din, Rav Schwartz, shlit"a.... Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. And that is consistent with the lenient majority. We're trying to understand the cRc's ruling. There is no derabbanan here[, to justify another poster's invocation of safeiq derabbanan]. They're saying that the odds of your cup being washed without soap with a plate that held hot bacon or tereifah chicken is high enough that one needs to avoid taking that risk. But that's real nosein ta'am of an issur de'oraisa. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:56pm +0300 someone wrote to Areivim, on a discussion of the cRc's ruling against : I don't drink coffee at all, so I'm not a frequent Starbucks customer, but : I suspect that a sandwich like : https://www.starbucks.com/menu/food/sandwiches-panini-and-wraps/chicken-blt-salad-sandwich?foodZone=9999 : is probably at least 1/60th chicken or bacon. The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 13:17:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women Message-ID: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the topic of leadership/ordination for women. (I am indebted to some of those here who helped sharpen arguments :-) ). I think I have adequately illustrated that their position is based on wrong/unproven facts, poor logic, fuzzy definitions, strained arguments, and inconsistent application of the rules. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need to have a comprehensive and systematic approach to gender and public/leadership. I am happy to respond to questions, critiques and criticisms. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/sneak-peek-an-analysis-of-the-ban-on-women-rabbis/ Noam Stadlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 12:38:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926193827.GA27624@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:56:59AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: :> I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one :> may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if :> promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are :> currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. : From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: ... : It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as : tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his : minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But : what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka.... Agreed, but I don't see how it's obvious. Say your handyman is a pious guy, and rather than not doing business with people who can't afford his full rate, he charges them less for labor. Also, Rn Handyman isn't so willing to take the full hit on total income. Since this is a nice guy, we can assume that if more of the town were wealthier, his usual rate for someone who can beqoshi stretch the budget would be lower. Is the difference in salary tzedaqah? Does it make a difference if Reb Handyman actuall did this accounting and maybe even announced the resulting differential? Or is a baal melakhah's pay rate money owed, and such cheshbonos should be irrelevent. This imaginary scenario was designed to be both parallel and to my mind a somewhat wild line of reasoning. 1- Once you say that any tuition paid beyond the cost for your child is indeed tzedaqah, one needs a pesaq about how to apportion group costs to each individual student. The cost of the class divided by students, then the cost of school administation divided by the student body? Or maybe if a teacher is hired as soon as a class would otherwise grow beyond 25 students, I should be looking at the incremental cost of my child after the need to start the additional class was caused by someone else? And then -- could it depend on if I registered late, or before the number of classes was determined? And don't get me started on who is paying for resource room staff, where there are parallels to the above AND the reality that different kids would be using different amount of the service. So that my kid's 1 hour per week may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to get a math specialist, whereas another student's 5 hours of readin help is with a teacher they needed otherwise. Who pays what? 2- Once you make it tzedaqah, rather than considering tuition as debt, all could be fine-and-well halachically. And so it can come out of maaser kesafim. (All the more so because we aren't even sure maaser kesafim is a din.) And the schools like this, because it frees up maaser money for people who would otherwise need scholarship. But the line you're replying to was arguing that there is a downside for the school as well. As the teshuvah we started from notes -- debt is a higher priority than tzedaqah. You don't pay maaser out of money owed. And so, the school is marketing a din that may mean /less/ money for them than if the halakhah were that the full tuition should be treated as a debt. position for a sch chakhamim don't have to pay city defenses; maybe a good kid who doesn't see the principal should be considered : to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition : may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we : are discussing, since it is a poor community). GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 21:47:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> References: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4d52778a-5fe9-0dae-592c-ff6316a77877@sero.name> On 26/09/17 14:54, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health > department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough > regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. They wash in soapy water first, and then in clear water. The cRc's position is that soapy water, which is hotter than yad soledes bo but cooler than kashering temp, prevents the transmission of treife taam from one keli to another when they are washed together, but it does *not* render the treife keli permanently pagum. The treife keli comes out just as treif as it was, so when it's then put into *clean* hot water together with the kosher keli the treife taam transfers. > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical substance at all, so it's not surprising that even if it permeates the keli's entire structure, which we assume it does, it doesn't add to its mass. This is also why the bracha on coffee is shehakol, not ha'etz, because there is no substance of the coffee bean in the final product; only taam, smell, and colour are transferred in the brewing, all of which are assumed to have zero mass. Which makes the existence of instant coffee a conundrum, and casts doubt on the practise of saying shehakol also on coffee made from instant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Tabory via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom Message-ID: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. Yosef Tabory From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 08:26:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170927152646.GD1177@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote: : Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of : the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel : minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)... Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah. I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian "Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon, they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation -- 10 yemei teshuvah. To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh. : Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, : the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not : wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought : that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh : Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh) had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom" in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify abandoning it. ----- While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef, let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in "Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi yontef nusach for the joke to work. Why are so many Jews overweight? Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we sing: Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein! Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8), apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates! GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:30:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:30:33 +0000 Subject: “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux Message-ID: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> >From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")? A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart" (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13). IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me) GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:29:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:29:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds Message-ID: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense that A gets more credit(schar) than B? My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish, etc.) Thoughts? GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 19:34:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom Message-ID: . Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz. I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. Specifically: Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912 Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928 Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940 (Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.) Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949 Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950 Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960 The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960 Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982 There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this machlokes. However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different, and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America (who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 18:20:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical > substance at all, ... I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical substance? I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* be removed by cleaning. Gmar chasima tova to all, Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:21:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? Message-ID: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Please see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v I personally have always used money for Kapporas was. This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly mistreated before they are used for Kapporas. IIRC a few years ago it was discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water or food and died. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:31:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had to be discarded. After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost everywhere with the kapporos chickens. Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim: it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here. I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko. But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:48:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical >> substance at all, ... > > I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence > that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical > substance? I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a modern person to wrap ones head around. > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must > be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* > be removed by cleaning. If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing left to kasher! All you've done is clean the surface. There was never a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on the surface. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:54:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7096234e-1e3d-84c3-bb8b-dcfebecbb79f@starways.net> On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 10:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170928170022.GC32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence :> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical :> substance? : I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for : a modern person to wrap ones head around. I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT) about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion: : On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got :> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is :> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean :> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the :> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... : If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get : it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I : always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance : absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel : possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we understand an experience intellectually. This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs, etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience. My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer, than on the physics of the objects being utilized. Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance (like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance" (as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the past agreed with. If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked: > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the whole pot is indeed tainted. I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 12:03:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v ... : This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly : mistreated before they are used for Kapporas... That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens, not the minhag. This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag. The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag. In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it? Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori. (It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.) And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and "ve'ein leshanos". Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa") or not been doing kapparos at all. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 11:52:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588ee3662a16491c9404fcc82bfe2e8a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom. Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 28 22:03:26 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them > a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate object such as money. You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. > Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 29 13:15:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the : >Maharil)... : : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather from his own money. (Shelah) : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a meilitz yosher before going into din. I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the pidyon of the person. :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree.... Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag vasiqin"? GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht : Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a : life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it : with an inanimate object such as money. : : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but : the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after : kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or : else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The : Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, : since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. : : : >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- : >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were : doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand : it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. : : -- : Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, : zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all : _______________________________________________ : Avodah mailing list : Avodah at lists.aishdas.org : http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org : GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From zev at sero.name Fri Sep 29 13:33:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > : >Maharil)... > : > : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it > : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... > > Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather > from his own money. (Shelah) As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... > > Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is > inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer > to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a > meilitz yosher before going into din. Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka. Plus, kaporos is not done right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend doing it as much as a few days earlier). > I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have > primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation? > I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the > pidyon of the person. The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. > :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. > > : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means > : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its > : pedigree.... > > Source? It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". > He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously > suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves > pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin > to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition > fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag > vasiqin"? The same thing. Although don't know who gave this heter someone must have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we don't understand it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:05:15 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog Message-ID: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one? From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:14:07 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to another book which I don't own). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Sep 30 13:35:00 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: If I can mix actuality with the idea below: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. Ben On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the > Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after > kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or > else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer > Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since > it's less embarrassing to the recipient. From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:22:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c1fa29c-aa4b-122a-0dce-bfe50d5e5e32@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 > minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of > Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). > > What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to > another book which I don't own). Shulchan aruch OC 649. See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like the Rambam. Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being covered in more red berries than leaves, etc. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 19:18:58 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov Message-ID: . A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group: > The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when > Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is > known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is > a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one > is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in > for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving > lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed > and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good > both physically and spiritually! When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos. My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov? I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos. Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years, I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic - allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running, Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote "Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".) So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Looking forward to your responses. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sat Sep 30 18:03:12 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171001010312.GA17048@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". : > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will : > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give : > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather : > from his own money. (Shelah) : : As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do : kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. : Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos : is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give : tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. : >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is : >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer : >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a : >meilitz yosher before going into din. : : Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama : and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all : of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) As you yourself write, epmashsis added: : The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, : instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can : buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. : >: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : >: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : >: pedigree.... : > : >Source? : : It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a : plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find "vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim. Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless. The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the chain was already broken for a couple of generations. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 21:05:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3040f2fc-ea44-2eaf-3016-6c25f3b8b9c6@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and > sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the > mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only > applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar one may buy the cheaper one. The second opinion is that even if both are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a third more for the better one. This rule is not just for esrog, it's in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b). > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you can)? If > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a > hiddur to buy one? It means neither one. You left out a word. The Mechaber's language is "*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish". One should buy the better one, *if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior one. If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it. But there's certainly no restriction if you want to. The gemara says "Up to a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:25:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If I can mix actuality with the idea below: > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 > > What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with > tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or > honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that > affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in > Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck. There's nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-) Especially on Erev Yom Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah. The scandal is that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah. If they shechted them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared. [Email #2] On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". >:> And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will >:> be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give >:> maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather >:> from his own money. (Shelah) >: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do >: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. >: Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos >: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give >: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person > to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. We clearly have switched topics. There is no other way to read the Rama. The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka. The Rama says that we should not change this minhag. Then he says how it should be done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white. *Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the person. and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam". It's a pidyon just like pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the poor, we buy it back from tzedaka. >:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is >:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer >:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a >:> meilitz yosher before going into din. >: Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama >: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all >: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... > The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor > person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly. The minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them money. On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable. See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned earlier. So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery. See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to the poor. (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.) > (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about > a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes > no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) Where did you get this idea? There's nothing about it in the source we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen. The pasuk from Iyov is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" that we will shecht instead of this "gever". It has nothing to do with doing a mitzvah. Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov. > As you yourself write, epmashsis added: >: The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, >: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can >: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this. Giving it to the poor is a separate minhag. BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries or something, but you think it's good enough for them. This isn't a logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money prevents it. On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy day). >:>: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means >:>: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its >:>: pedigree.... This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an old minhag". But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised what it was. "Vosik" does not mean old. You're confusing it with "`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; strong; distinguished". "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a distinguished scholar". "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee distinguished among the nations". "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the conscientiously pious men of former days." So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn because they can't sleep anyway:-) [Email #3] PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really. https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7 defines it in leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced". So even when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time itself but to the experience gained over that time. The etymology is not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy". It does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, but of experience. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 1 19:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" Message-ID: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> 1) Balaam advocates the destruction of an entire people. He is a hired gun (or mouth) who has exploited his prophetic gift and is willing to help implement a genocide for the right price. This type of individual has separated himself from all people, hence, this position of his is coded in his very name Balaam, "B'li Am," "without a people." 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is called an "aton.? Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of the physical. But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey, therefore his donkey speaks to him -- the inference being that Balaam has descended to an animalistic level, and that is the symbolism of the donkey talking to him. I see it as "chamor" in the sense of "heavy" referring to Abraham, since he carries so much more weight than Balaam. On the other hand, Balaam's donkey is called ?aton,? very similar to the word "etnan" which means a "harlot's pay? ? quitet fascinating since Balaam prostituted himself with the intention of fulfilling Balak's request. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.? Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 2 08:25:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: RMB wrote: > IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than > Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ > that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what > the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions > in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) > believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in > 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. Indeed, I recall, upon dealing with those various shittos while in RIETS, particularly as covered by Rav Charlop in a shiur of his, that Satmar and Rav Kook are a lot closer to each other than to Agudah & Rav Soloveitchik. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 09:14:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:14:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?What_is_the_correct_way_to_pronounce_Hashem?= =?cp1255?q?=92s_name_in_Shmoneh_Esrei_and_other_brachos=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170703161444.GC18193@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Halacha Yomis ... : A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D ... "We have : a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, : that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY : -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf : Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." First, we know from seifer Shoferim that different shevatim had different accents, such that Shevet Ephraim (like Litvaks of a much later date) pronounced as right-dotted shin the same as a sin or samekh. So how can we talk about a single accent even at Har Sinai? I therefore assume RSZE Hy"d was saying that you need to use your mesorah's patach-cholam-qamatz, as he spells out in the rephrasing. And that these vowels are what's misinai. Which is also problematic, as the division of various possible vowel alophones into specific phonemes probably didn't happen until Teverya. This next paragraph may make your eyes glaze over. It justifies the previous one, but feel free to skip it if it bores you and move on to the next point: Which explains why Bavel's nequdos don't line up one-to-one with the ones we use today -- one symbol for segol and patach and one symbol for qamatz qatan and cholam with a different one for. And the prior Israeli system fits Sepharadi pronounciation, fewer symbols showing less differentiation, but it could simply be less precise. The way we still have one symbol for qamatz qatan and qamatz gadol, or sheva na and sheva nach. (Unless you are using a "simanim" or other non-standard printing. Unicode actually supports this differentiation, if you find a font and a text file that distinguishes.) One symbol does not mean one phoneme. But it hints at how the locals viewer the vowels. Like Rashi, who echoes the Babylonian single segol-patach system when he refers to a segol as a patach qatan. (If you are still reading this paragraph, you'd probably enjoy our mesorah email list. Ask me to sign you up!) R Rallis Weisenthal (CC-ed), in his siddur in memory of Qh"Q Bad Homburg pg LXV (on opensiddur.org), lists traditional Ashkneazi cholam sounds, claiming that they're all dipthongs. ("Claiming", because I am not sure he's right on one of them): Poland, Austria-Hungary komatz chirik O^i [t]oy Lithuania, Russia segol chirik Ae^i [p]ay Northern Germany, Holland patach shuruk A^u [h]ow Southern Germany, Switzerland, France, Latvia, England, North America komatz shuruk O^u [g]o I think the Lithuanian cholam was originally more like /oe/ a sound halfway between /o/ and a tzeirei. (And the /e/ of the tzeirei isn't quite the same as a segol.) What he is describing reflects later Polish influence, a compromise position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio could help here. And I think the British cholam actually is rounder than a qamatz, like a long /O/ in English. And like a long /O/, there is a tendency to add a rounding /w/ (eg "blow"), but it's not always there. Maybe a dipthong of qamatz qatan and a /w/, which is shitas haGra. Not entirely different than what RRW writes, but also not quite as implied from his description. Anyway, he has a continuing discussion by R' Y Kramer againt using a /y/ or /i/ sound to round a cholam. Go to the above link. It's too long and two bi-lingual for me to cut-n-paste here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 10:03:51PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. : However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is : called an "aton." : Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) : suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of : the physical. : But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey... Thus the root "aleph-tav", meaning together with (eg "ito bateivah"). The Gra makes this point about riding a chamor being mastery of one's chomer vs being together with one's ason. I bet RAK cites him. He lurks here, but I took the liberty of CC-ing RAK so as to get his attention. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 11:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The Maharal -- preceded the Gra on this point. Here is a paragraph from the new edition of Explorations (anticipated 20th anniversary edition) The denouement of history is in our hands. The Mashiach will be revealed in clouds of glory if we are worthy; if we are unworthy, our redemption will be of a far less exalted nature. If we are deserving, the clouds will be revealed sooner; if not, the redemption will take longer, and the process will be slow and plodding -- but the redemption will surely come. And just as the clouds are an image that is laden with meaning, representing man's ability to recognize and connect to the metaphysical plane, so, too, the image of the Messiah as a poor man riding on his donkey is no mere literary device: According to mystical sources, this metaphor holds the key to the redemption itself: The Zohar[1] explains that the role of Mashiach is to ride on the chamor, to subdue the physical.[2] ________________________________ [1] Zohar Bemidbar 207a ???? ??? ? ?? ??/? ????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?????"?. ?????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??????????, (????? ??) ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????"? ?????????. ?????? ???? ??????, ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? Those of the right are all merged in one called "donkey," and that is the donkey of which it is written, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" [Devarim 22:10]. That is also the donkey which the King Mashiach shall control. (Zohar, Bemidbar 207a) [2] See comments of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael chapter 40. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? - ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ?"? ???????? ???"? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????...??"? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. Can I repeat that second line on list? As for the first line... In general, email lists are failing. And yet, I don't want to move Avodah to a medium that encourages quick and short answers. If Avodah can't remain a place for in-depth discussion, I'll let it fade away. Mail-Jewish, the grand-daddy in the field, is coming out with a digest every two weeks or so. Although it's healthier than Avodah in terms of breadth of contributor pool. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 07:54:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it Message-ID: Recently, someone quoted a friend as saying something about how doing something for the wrong reason could constitute making the Mishna Burah into an Avodah Zara. Or something like that, I don't remember exactly, and I spent almost an hour trying to find the post, so that's why I can't quote it. Anyway, that person was wondering where the idea came from, and I found the following in the current issue of Jewish Action, also available online at https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ > Love of Torah does not always translate into love of > people ? or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk > caustically noted that increased religious observance is not > always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather > sometimes it is for the sake of ?worshipping the Shulchan Aruch.? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 11:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad Message-ID: Mishnah Megillah 4:9 teaches us: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad just like he blesses for the good." That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are talking about two different situations: If one has actually experienced something, then he must bless God for the good *OR* for the bad, whichever applies to the experience. There is no need to be inclusive, to mention that He is responsible for both. But when one speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when he must mention both the good and the bad. Or perhaps he can speak in generalities, but he must be careful not to suggest that God does *only* good things, to the exclusion of painful things: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that He *does* good. The things He does is described mostly in terms of the life He gives us, and the miracles that He does. (It is true that at one point it we thank Him for "tovosecha" - Your good things - but that is secondary, coming after "niflaosecha".) But then we turned to the fourth bracha of Birkas Hamazon, usually referred to as "Hatov v'haMaytiv" - "the One who is good, and does good" - from the central words. And then it continues: "Hu haytiv, hu maytiv, hu yaytiv lanu" - "He has done good, He does do good, and He will do good to us." And it closes with: "He will never deprive us of anything good." Where is the bad? In what way is this bracha not a violation of this mishna in Megilla? I concede that we've left out the Mishna's word "yizacher", but I don't think that is relevant. It appears to go directly against what the Gemara Megilla wrote, "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad." Is there any way to reconcile this gemara with this bracha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 13:44:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/07/17 14:54, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But when one > speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when > he must mention both the good and the bad. No. There is no need to mention all the things He does. Nor is there any need, when thanking Him for the good things He does, to include also the other things He does. What one may not do is declare that He is *to be thanked for* the good things He does, which implies He is *not* to be thanked for the other things he does. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:15:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered Message-ID: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:17:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:17:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 08:00:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170706150007.GD11698@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:17:31PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? : If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at : all minyanim? By whom? In an alternate reality, where I went into kelei qodesh instead of Wall Street programming jobs, there is (would have been?) a movement by now called Mevaqshei Tov veYosher, a/k/a Other-Focused Orthodoxy (OFO). The OFO flagship shul, Yishrei Leiv, hosts AishDas programming, of course, and at this point in alternate time, has a number of ve'adei mussar, shiurim in machashavah and workshops in tefillah. And, in line with OFO ideology, the rule for who can correct the baal qeri'ah is simple. The only people who can do so are (would be): 1- the gabbaim, 2- the rav, and 3- next week's baal qeri'ah . (Everyone else should go to the gabbaim quietly. Even at the expense of an occasional repeated pasuq. But also gabbaim would need to know diqduq and be able to field the simpler questions of which mistakes actually require correction.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 7 15:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:51:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION Message-ID: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> I sent an email to AVODAH where I mistakenly wrote that Rav Rivkas from Rabbeinu HaGra's family did not write Be'er Hagolah seeking to correct their misspelling. I wrote Bay.ur Hagolah. NEITHER is correct. He wrote B' er HaGolah. there is a shva under the Bais. I ws mistakenly thinking of ppl mistakenly saying Biur HaGra instead of Bay.ur Hagra. My mistake but as least I was thinking of the Gra. :) Reb Joel -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:51:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] the desire to be remembered Message-ID: <000001d2f823$a6448d60$f2cda820$@actcom.net.il> I would call this the need for recognition or the desire for kavod. I think it is a yetzer akin to the need for food or the desire for sex, the yetzer hara that is 'tov la'adam' as Bereshit Rabba puts it. Without the appetite for food, we would probably die of malnutrition; without the desire for sexual pleasure we would probably not want to procreate, and without the desire for kavod/recognition, we would probably be sociopaths. Our need for recognition (desire to be remembered, if you prefer) enables everything from toilet training to basic manners to our desire to contribute positively to society. If we did not need the approval of our parents and our peers, we would never get far enough along the path of social interaction to learn the rewarding nature of altruism and doing good for the sake of doing good. The process of socialization makes us human. Without our need for kavod/approval/recognition, it is hard to see how we could ever be educated. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 14:24:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:24:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India Message-ID: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties between Israel and India? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 19:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India In-Reply-To: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> References: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 08/07/17 17:24, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol > worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties > between Israel and India? I don't see why. There were treaties between our ancient kings and foreign rulers, pretty much all of whom served AZ. And of course there's the treaty between Yaacov & Lavan, which was explicitly backed by each party's deity/ies. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 08:24:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION In-Reply-To: <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> References: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59624AA6.4070406@schnurassociates.com> at least I know that there are some people actually reading what I send out, so TY 2 Rabbi Ralbag, shimon, Capt Dan and I think Mendy for responding. as for the rabbi's comment, I am pleased to see/read that he has a good sense of humor. I also learned how to spell email in Hebrew. My announced CORRECTION reminds me of the incident with Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he had a prober for being Rosh Hayeshiva for KOL TORAH. he was giving his shiur and someone corrected him. He stopped, thought about it and then said 'taeeti" figuring he blew his chance for getting the job. Afterwards they told him he was selected as RY and he supposedly said "but I blew it when I made that mistake." Just the opposite they said. We want someone who is able to admit he made a mistake. and with that story, I end this adventure. :) B'yidedus, Joel > Rav Ralbag > July 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM > ?? JOEL: > ???? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. > ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????-??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? > ????? !! > ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? - ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? > ??? !!!!??? > ??? ???? ????? ?????-????? ! > ????? ???? ???? ??? ?-?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ??????? ??? ????? > ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? - ?????, ???? ????? ???? > ???? !!! > ??????? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, > ???? ????? On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, mendy stern wrote: > So you want to be the Rosh Yeshiva? Only if the yeshiva davens nusach HaGra! Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 19:36:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? ---------------- My shul does not, except that the previous (now deceased Rav) was very against it, quoting the Tur about embarrassing the Baal Korei. That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 20:00:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:00:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <04ba01d2f928$bced1db0$36c75910$@gmail.com> R' JR: R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? ------------------------ Maslow's highest level in his Hierarchy of Needs (in its later permutations) is self-transcendence. I think that's what you're talking about. Here's some further on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcenden ce KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 02:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:45:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ================================ We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 09:24:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: ?Pinhas? has turned back Chamati, My wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11) So, Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous, difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamati (my wrath), the two outside letters chet and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters, mem and tav, read meit ? death. The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meit) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai). (Also, if you remove the "W" (for Wilderness) from "wrath" and replace it with "O" (for Obedience to God), the ?orath? can be rearranged to read Torah). Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live. Norman Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 11:58:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:37am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote to Areivim: : In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla : attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. : : My review and analysis of his failed approach to halacha is at : http://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/2017/7/7/the-not-so-orthodox-embrace-of-the-new-age-movement Although RBR posted to Areivim, I have an Avodah question. To quote: > To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For > example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has > been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to > the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved > as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies > it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, > or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it > globally. And the article discusses things like auras and other New Age ideas that if traced back to their origins one will find AZ. Is it all that different than the gemara's discussion or wearing a fox's tooth, where even a Rationalist like the Rambam (Shabbos 19:13) permits? Darkhei Emori are allowed for refu'ah (AZ 67a). Also Rashi (Chullin 77b "yeish") which according to the Panim Me'iros (1:36) includes any act to the body to be healed, but not "spooky action at a distance" (to quote Dr Einstein out of context). The Ran (Chullin ad loc) based on this Rashi explicitly permits any act we know works to heal, even if the workings are metaphysical. So is the difference only in which metaphysics I personally believe is real, and which is -- again, IMHO -- "woowoo"? And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? Are the laws of tereifos, which say put despite later findings about what an animal can live 12 months with, and what not, typical and precedent to say we go with Chazal's science, law is law, ignore the science? Or is it an exception because tereifos is halakhah leMoshe miSinai? I could see the standard of medical testing being decided by that question... Or... when it comes to which saqanos one is allowed to risk, the standard is normal and accepted. If people tend to climb trees to pick dates, it is mutar to get a job risking a fall from the top of a date-palm. Perhaps medicine too is defined by societal standards. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 12:27:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> References: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> Message-ID: And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 14:47:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170710214723.GA29132@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to : be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this : desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's : knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or : general society)? >From a recent blog post of mine, The Interpersonal Aspect of Parah Adumah : To illustrate how the Yerushalmi works, I enjoy taking a rather extreme case -- Berakhos 7:1, 51b: 1. Rav Huna said: Three who eat, this one by himself, this one by himself, and this one by himself, who then mix together should bentch with a mezuman. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three people, so that each ate with an obligation of zimun, even if from different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may make a zimun] when they ate together. 1. Rabbi Yonah [commented] on that which Rab Hunah [was just quoted as saying]: If [the kohein] dipped three hyssop sprigs [into the water made with the ashes of a parah adumah], this one by itself and this one by itself, and mixed them [the hyssops] together, one may sprinkle [the person needing taharah] with them. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three sprigs, so that each sprig was dipped as part of a group of three, even if different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may may be used for sprinkling parah adumah water] when they were dipped together. ... But what justifies this comparison? Is it really an expectation that all groups of three ought to be alike, regardless of the topic or the sort of group? In 1973, Ernest Becker wrote a book on philosophy and psychology titled "The Denial of Death". To give a thumbnail of his basic thesis, here are some snippets from [38]The Becker Foundation's "Theories" page: "[T]he basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death." ... The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of mortality. Since human beings have a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we can transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving the symbolic half. Becker describes human pursuit of "immortality projects" (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things. Still, for Becker, the only suitable source of meaning is transcendent, cosmic energy, divine purpose... Becker develops an idea that strikes most of us naturally. A central -- and perhaps THE central -- piece of our drives to contribute to community and to pursue a higher meaning is because these both overcome our own death. What I give my children outlives me in my children, grandchildren and beyond. What I contribute to the Jewish People is eternal because our nation is eternal. What I add to the development of humanity from Adam to the messiah outlives me in impacting the lives of generations to come. Fear of death, the need to embark on "immortality projects" can push us to expand our souls to beyond our mortal bodies. As Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to his substance and body. Above that one is someone who feels that his "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above that one is someone who can include in his "ani" all of his household and family.... And there are more levels in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the world and worlds are his "ani," and he himself is only one small limb in all of creation.... Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and [even] all of creation. The parah adumah is about overcoming death. A person who witnessed or experienced another's death is told to go through a ritual of changing tracks... He not only sees three sprigs from a scrubby bush, but also is thinking about joining together and how he can join with others. How to turn that conversation around from death and its reminder that we are merely physical beings toward death as a drive to go beyond that. We should not forget the most cryptic (choq-like) element of the parah adumah. ... [I]t requires that someone from the community reach out to them, even at their own expense. A true uniting of someone who might be thinking about death and man-as-mammal back into being a person contributing meaning to a larger community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 19:08:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on > chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better > standards for testing medicine? R' Joel Rich responded: > The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud > certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and > correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with > sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what > was known to them in their time." > > I'd appreciate specific examples I recently tried to learn a bit about Techum Shabbos. I was very surprised to find an entire siman (#399, with eleven se'ifim), giving details of exactly how the techum is to be measured. For example, the first se'if specifies that we must use a linen rope exactly 50 amos long. I was very surprised that the halacha would write such things, rather than simply presuming that we'd be smart enough to use whatever procedures are generally accepted as accurate. This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do it. The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective one, and tradition might rule. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 21:51:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> R' JR: We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. -------------------------------- I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 04:56:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fb6f6b1-b8cd-4075-09ea-8f770a1b66bd@zahav.net.il> If the person is reading from a full Bible, I will just listen. If I am not sure what book he's reading from, I'll read it to myself. IIRC the Mishna Bruria takes it as a given that the reason most shuls don't read from the klaf is because of the cost. Given today's incomes and fancy shuls, that shouldn't be a factor. And yet, it is the rare beit knesset where they read from a klaf. Ben On 7/11/2017 6:51 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? > > KT, > MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 15:50:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170711225048.GA29349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be : corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to : themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach : Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. : : Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? I will confirm. ... WRT shuls that aren't leining from kelaf. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 17:09:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 18:31:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170712013159.GA6359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, : who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a : surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, : they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do : it. Say I were to use a shorter rope. Well, then my measurments would include more dips and bumps. Whereas the 50 ammah rope might cut a direct path, a shorter rope would have two segments, in different angles. The measure would be longer than if you just cut the tangent. (And in fact, since most landscape is fractal, or nearly fractal until you get cown to molecules, if your "ruler" were smaller than a grain of sand, you could probably measure 50 amos along the wrinkles of the surface within an arm's reach of where you started.) So, the length of the rope will actually change the final measure. The navi implies that a shorter rope would be /too/ accurate, forcing a smaller measure than necessary. The weight of the chain means that sagging is more common, as lest if you aren't a surveyor. Or maybe the exact strechiness of linen - less than wool but more than metal, is also part of the actual measure. ... : The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might : agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better : procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring : distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular : procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective : science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective And to reframe where I was going above in these terms: There are times when Chazal are not trying to establish objective facts. (Or, to revive another old thread and my hangup about how halakhah defines metzi'us: ... to establish as objectively as possible those facts that could potentially enter our subjective experience.) In nidon didan, the question would be: In order for a treatment not to be derekh emori, and to be allowed on Shabbos where medicine for a choleh sh'ein bo saqanah would be allows, does it 1- have to be established as potentially effect to the best we can establish it? or 2- have to be accepted as potentially effective by chazaqah, which is the normal rule for justifying presumption in cases of doubt? How objetive are we being asked to be? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 12 19:06:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:06:59 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not Shechted? Meaning, if we have a creature that cannot be Shechted, but it is not a non-Kosher species, it might be a Neveilah but be Kosher to eat because there is no prohibition on eating Neveilah. The non-fully gestated cow sheep or goat, even if it is born in the normal manner, is not classified in Halacha as Bakar or Tzon. See Rashi Chulin 72b end of Mishneh. It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 03:33:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170713103351.GD14756@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:54:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ :> Love of Torah does not always translate into love of :> people -- or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk :> caustically noted that increased religious observance is not :> always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather :> sometimes it is for the sake of "worshipping the Shulchan Aruch." In R' Shlomo Wolbe, Alei Shur, vol II, "Frumkeit" , speaks of halachic obervant not for the sake of worshipping G-d, but speaks to why one would "worship the SA" if it isn't about G-d. A translation of the opening: > Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge to connect to the Creator. This > instinct is also found in animals. King David said, " The young lions roar > after their prey, and seek their food from G-d." (Psalms 104:21) "He gives > to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." (Psalms 147:9) > There is no need to understand these verses as [mere] figures of > speech -- animals have an instinctive sense that there exists One who > is concerned about their sustenance. This instinct [also] operates in > man -- on a higher level, of course. This natural frumkeit [instinct] > assists us in our service of G-d, and without this natural assistance > our service would would be extremely heavy upon us. However, frumkeit, > like any other instinctive urge that operates within man, is naturally > egotistical and self-centered. Accordingly, frumkeit drives a person to > do only that which is good for himself -- [in contrast, positive] actions > between man and his fellow man, as well as wholehearted actions between > man and G-d are not fueled by frumkeit. One who bases his service on it > alone remains egocentric. Even if he were to impose many stringencies > upon himself, he would not become a man of kindness, and he would not > reach [the level of] altruistic service. This is what necessitates that > we base our service specifically on intellect... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 16:31:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:00:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3abd2947-8a52-7433-c908-731af71507b2@sero.name> On 13/07/17 19:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr > Gouraud of the US. Google misinforms you. See, e.g., http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1412.htm#20 Or, lehavdil, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/1935454 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:37:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> R' MB: The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. --------------------------------- Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which was intended for facial hair. KT, MYG P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:11:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20170714151122.GB32531@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: : Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which : was intended for facial hair. It says that the poor "waxed" themselves with sid; and I am assumign that's not for skin as sensitive as cheeks. The rich used soles. Was this as an abrasive? Is fine flour even abrasive, or (as I seem to recall of today's grindings) -- soft? I think the rich used white makeup. And benos melakhim used shemen hamor, which we are told is acidic olive oil from underripe olives. While I do not doubt that benos melakhim tried this a means to reduce hair growth (the gemara says it also ma'adan habasar) I do doubt it worked. More recently (meaning, up to the mass production of depilatories) in Europe, cat's urine (for the ammonia, a strong base) or vinegar (an acid) were used. Both were believed to prevent or reduce hair growth, not remove what did gwo. But both failed double-blind testing. : P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use : wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. Many NA nations also tend to produce far less facial hair than most Jewish men to start with. I guess people can learn to get used to it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714152753.GA14639@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:59PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not : Shechted? In his Bar Mitzvah derashah, R' Chaim Brisker proved that neveilah and tereifah were aspects of the same underlying issur. Thus explaining (among other points I do not remember) why the Rambam holds that a neveilah and a tereifah can be metz'tarfos to a kezayis issur. Which would imply that WRT eating, all non-shechted meat is the same, and the issur is the lack of shechitah, not the tum'as neveilah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:47:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714154729.GB14639@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies : that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that : contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad : just like he blesses for the good." But that doesn't mean he must bless for the bad whenever he blesses for the good. Which is I think the chiluq that resolves the problems you raised. : That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say : one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one : experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On : *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is : irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Actually, even painful effects of the same occasion. Like the textbook case: Inheriting a large some of money requires making both Dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. : Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are : talking about two different situations... I think they are both talking about the good and tragic in the same situations. The first mishnah is prohibiting someone from even implying in a non-response context that when experiencing tragedy, one can skip Dayan ha'emes. : So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually : followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It : turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is : mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that : He *does* good.... Mah beinaihu? After all, all His "Middos" are about appearances and how the effects of his Action look to us. And actually, it pretty explicitly says in one point that it's about G-d appearing to us as Good -- "'haTov' shimkha". But as I opened, I didn't see Megillah as saying when we offer general thanks, it must be about both. Rather, he cannot be the kind of peson that skips thanking Him for those things He does "for our own good" (to paraphrase the stereotypical parent line). And thus, no problem in the 4th berakhah of bentching, either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:08:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: . R' Meir G Rabi asked: > It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just > like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. Why can't a horse be shechted? Is it missing the simanim? Of course, it would still be assur to eat the horse because it is a tamay species, but would that prevent one from doing a valid shechita? (I vaguely recall a case where a choleh sheyesh bo sakana was prescribed pork by his doctor, and the rav told him to shecht the chazir.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:02:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of him that is generally accepted as accurate? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:26:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure > I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone > reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only > the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go > 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? I have no idea what you mean by "litvishe" in this context. Do you mean Nusach Ashenaz, or Yeshivish, or In A Yeshiva, or something else? Anyway, in the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls and yeshivos that I have attended, virtually no one reads the haftara to himself, regardless of whether the Reader is reading from a klaf, a printed Tanach, or a Chumash. And those few who *do* read it to themselves are (unfortunately) loud enough to make it difficult to hear the Reader. In the Nusach Sefard shuls I've been to, there much more people reading to themselves. In fact, the Reader often doesn't even attempt to raise his voice so that others can hear him. But I've attended Nusach Sefard shuls rarely enough that I cannot venture a guess about the percentages. R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:23:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:23:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185632c6b5e74915992256cfd1207daf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ because I assumed that one was not being yotzeih with that reading but one's own Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 20:00:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:00:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes > are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of > the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an > educational thing"? I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. There is a chiyuv for a tzibur to read the Torah, although not on any individual to hear it. Even if ten men come into shul after krias hatorah they do not have to make it up, but if it was not read at all then the tzibur must make it up. But with the haftarah even if it was not read at all they need not make it up; this shows that there is no chiyuv, and therefore nothing that can be said not to have been fulfilled. Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:24:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? Or to be less pretencious: *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos on the other side? My wife is a righty and we use joint accounts. We are both listed as owners, and both of our names were on the mortgage. Even if I were supposed to hang my mezuzos on the left, are we shutefim in owning the house and therefore it should follow the rightward norm? I asked R' Gidon Rothstein, since it was his recent post on Torah Musings that launched my wondering, and he felt that it would go by the assumption that typical people coming in and out of the house are righty, and the owner's handedness shouldn't matter. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 08:25:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> References: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/07/17 22:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the > baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? > > Or to be less pretencious:*Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his > mezuzos on the other side? I wouldn't expect it, because I don't see any sevara to differentiate between houses based on who the owner is. Mezuzah is (lich'orah) a chovas cheftza, and the house is not left-handed! (See http://tinyurl.com/y9btfa9c , who cites R Chaim Brisker, Stencil #3) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/2017 6:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes >> are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of >> the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an >> educational thing"? > > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let > alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply that it's not just casual reading? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170716193026.GA17994@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that : imply that it's not just casual reading? to strengthen the point, that "we" includes Sepharadim, who don't make berakhos on minhagim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 19:16:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28c39ae9-0df9-89c0-ea06-a5e1b0b700a7@sero.name> On 16/07/17 15:20, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let >> alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. > > But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply > that it's not just casual reading? It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a missed haftara. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:42:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The problem with OU DE In-Reply-To: References: <1500310874499.90870@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170718214244.GA27595@aishdas.org> On 7/17/2017 7:03 PM, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: > Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a > Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel > bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is > that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not > simultaneously. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote: : Why not? Bateil is bateil. See Chullin 11b. Dagim that "alu" into a qe'ara of meat may be eaten with milchig. But going on a plate of meat -- what does that mean? Does it mean cooking? Ashkenazim hold, "'alu' -- aval lo nisbashlu". It's na"t bar na"t. The Tur, the YD 95, the BY's discussion of the Rivan and Tosafos, Rama YD s' 2, the Shakh s"q 3, and the AhS s' 5,11-15 assert as much halakhah lema'aseh. The way you treat bitul, there would be no such thing as nosein ta'am. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:24:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: <596E7C94.5030109@schnurassociates.com> Our K'vasikin minyan at the Young Israel of Ave k in Flatbush, K & East 29, (45 minutes before HaNetz on Shabbos and YT, 30 minutes on cholo shel moed and RH), reads from a klaf only al pi HaGra and only the baal k'riah reads while everyone else just listens and answers awmen (no BHUS) -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos > on the other side? Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it on the right side of the one who enters." And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 16:47:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:47:22 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: R Akiva Miller asked - why can a horse not be Shechted? A horse cannot be Shechted the same way that a G cannot perform Shechitah. Shechitah is not a mechanical action performed to meet certain criteria - Shechitah requires the right person, the right animal and the proper action. The Mishneh Chullin 72b asks a Q we would never ask, in fact it takes a very long time to actually read and make sense of the Mishneh, so counter intuitive is its premise. Why is it that a horse is a Neveilah even if it is Shechted whereas a cow which is Shechted is not a Neveilah in spite of it being a Tereifa? In our mind, the non-Kosher status of a Tereifa is a consequence of its ritual blemish which in no way affects the Shechitah; of course the Shechitah should prevent the animal becoming a Neveilah. But that is not how the Mishneh sees things - the Mishneh understands that the Tereifa status of the cow invalidates the Shechitah - it is, in the Mishneh's mind, equivalent to Shechting a horse. The Mishneh answers that Yesh BeMino Shechitah - meaning, although the animal itself ought to be deemed not Shechted, nevertheless as a species it has an association with Shechitah so the Shechitah will, in spite of being imperfect, prevent it becoming a Neveilah. And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. R Micha already noted that this touches upon the [in]famous bar-mitzvah Pshettel of R Chaim. But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The Gemara [Chullin 113] requires a special Ribbuy to teach that there is an Issur to cook premature born cow with milk Gedi LeRabbos Es HaShellil. Why? Why might we think it is not like a regular cow? The Tiferes YaAkov explains that such an animal has no Issur Cheilev, Chullin 75a, which is unsurprising considering that it is not a BeHeimah, so we may well have argued there is no Issur BBCh; KMLan that it is deemed to be Bassar for the Issur of BBCh. Now think about this - a Jew may not cook nor eat BBCh If a Yid however is about to eat Cheilev, which he may not cook with milk since it is deemed to be Bassar, we cannot warn him that he is transgressing the Issur of eating BBCh. Why? Because Ein Issur Chal Al Issur - once the Issur of Cheilev is already in place the later Issur of BBCh cannot take hold. Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Which seems to indicate that although it is a Neveilah, there is no Issur to eat a prematurely born cow. [To be sure we would need to verify that it has not entered its ninth month.] Hence my Q - Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:23:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, > let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps "minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes? > Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read > at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is that we're supposed to be doing? In a later post, he wrote: > It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's > takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that > one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias > hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this > from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it > must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a > missed haftara. I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read. Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:31:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> On 7/19/2017 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay > when the haftarah is read improperly? I don't think the question works. Consider: we have a chiyuv to daven shmoneh esrei. But there are different girsaot, so clearly, exact wording isn't critical to fulfilling the requirement. So we already see that there are different levels of chiyuvim, and that we are more medayek on exact wording on some levels than others. Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to something like haftara than there is for Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719101803.GA11560@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos :> on the other side? : Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it : on the right side of the one who enters." : And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And : there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Besheim the Mordechai. The Shakh) says this is true even if the lefty lives alone or the whole family is lefty. Because mezuzah is a chiyuv on the house, not like tefillin's chiyuv, which is on the guf. The Be'eir Heiteiv quotes the Shakh, adding "vekhein nohagim". The AhS (s' 5) gives multiple reasons: 1- A house is made for anyone who lives there, not this specific person. Which might be the same explanation, might not. Seems related to the fact that we do not take mezuzos down when the next owner is Jewish. 2- He contrasts to tefillin, where the pasuq uses the word "yadkha" and we darshen "yad keihah", whereas "beisekha" is used to darshen the din that it's direction from which one enters. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 05:46:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84213f099d8841fb92a75e4a8d758038@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 04:27:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's > surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" > when it comes to something like haftara than there is for > Torah. We seem to agree that it *IS* possible to read the haftarah IMproperly, in contrast to R' Zev Sero, who wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be > read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't > be invalid. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 06:52:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> On 18/07/17 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas > chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, But that is key. What is a chiyuv, or rather in Hebrew a chovah? As anyone who's read an Ivrit bank statement or balance sheet can tell you, it's a liability. "Lotzeis y'dei chovah", or "being yotzei", means discharging that liability. If there is no chovah then there is nothing from which to exit; one cannot speak of being yotzei something that is not a chiyuv. Now krias hatorah is not a chovah on any individual. If one missed leining one shabbos one needn't make it up. Even if there are 10 men who missed it, and therefore could make it up if they wanted to, they don't. But it is a chovah on the tzibbur; if for some reason an entire community was unable to read the Torah one week they must make it up the next week by reading two sedros. If they don't then their liability has not been discharged. When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". Of course if it is to be read it should be read correctly. *Anything* that is read should be read correctly; there is no virtue in reading carelessly, as if one's words are of no importance so it doesn't matter if one butchers them. But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, and since not reading it leaves no undischarged liability on the community therefore a bad reading doesn't do so either. > Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim > correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is > that we're supposed to be doing? Suppose my argument is incorrect, and there *is* some obligation which the community must discharge? How long a reading counts? We know that the gemara's mention of 21 pesukim is merely a recommendation, since we routinely disregard it. So how small *can* we make it? By analogy with krias hatorah we can say that fewer than three pesukim is not a reading at all. But maybe the analogy is inapt, and the takana is fulfilled by *any* reading from the nevi'im, even just one pasuk, or perhaps even a single phrase. After all the whole takanah is simply in memory of the time when krias hatorah was banned, so we read nevi'im instead; so perhaps even a very small reading is enough to evoke this memory. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, >>> This illustrates why I suggested avoiding words like "chiyuv". Is our goal to be in a status of "no worse than not having read it at all"? Surely not! If we would be satisfied with such, then why do we bother reading it? Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I don't understand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:36:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: <51a89e09-5077-e733-156f-9027c6f70dc9@sero.name> On 19/07/17 13:20, Akiva Miller wrote: > > Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting > someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or > whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems > to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I > don't understand. I'm saying that it's not *required*, and therefore it becomes a highly situational question of balancing the reader's sensitivity and the tircha detzibura against a desire to hear a haftara that doesn't grate on the nerves. There's no "I'm sorry but if we don't correct him we won't be yotzei". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 12:43:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719194312.GA13614@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. : I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of : him that is generally accepted as accurate? Mequbalim in Itali had a mesorah from the Rama miFano (late 16th - early 17th cent) that beards were only appropriate in EY. The Ramchal's lack of beard was mentioned in the charges against him when he was drummed out of Italy for teaching a very messianic Qabbalah too soon after Shabbeta Zvi. Someone once showed me a Chasam Sofer and a Chidah which refer to this practice. But I couldn't find it. Meanwhile, I found Gilyon Maharshah (R' Shelomo Eiger), at the end of YD 181, says that kamah gedolei hamequbalim, talmidei haAri, who cut their beards with scissors. So, scissors is no my default assumption, which means they probably had some visible stuble, if not enough to qualify as a "beard". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 02:09:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> References: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> Message-ID: <19840673-e64a-c7e5-41b9-92f64dd10daf@zahav.net.il> Ikkar ha-din, someone who can't properly enunciate Hebrew letters isn't allowed to pray from the amud, never mind read the Torah or Haftorah. I don't know if there is a need to correct someone who consistently makes mistakes but there is certainly no reason to allow him to read at all if he can't do it properly. As an aside: one of my rabbis said that RYBS didn't correct someone in class who made mistakes reading the Gemara text but if someone made a mistake with a pasuk in the Gemara, then the Rav let him have it. Ben On 7/19/2017 12:31 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot > more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to > something like haftara than there is for Torah. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:11:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then > I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant. I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe "tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also. Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors, including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria Message-ID: RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing about the nature of the original obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 24 11:53:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah Message-ID: <20170724185345.GA20358@aishdas.org> In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61) discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads "leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving her a real gett. The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because "almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other misspellings that have only one possible intent. I was wondering if this is too fanciful: Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah" could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often given given in CE. Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could cross the readers mind. Maybe? Or too creative? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 06:47:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 12:40:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 08:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721@aishdas.org> One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 09:50:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:36:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:34:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:31:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:13:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 12:10:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:21:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:49:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> References: <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 23:38:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and historical. He brings parts of the midrashim about Avraham Avinu's early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for any other reason than to understand the historical facts. Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 26 July 2017 08:49 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Washing Clothes During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 2. The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 3. Menorah on Arch of Titus (Micha Berger via Avodah) 4. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 5. Showering During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 6. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 7. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 8. Re: alma vs. almah (elazar teitz via Avodah) 9. Re: alma vs. almah (Micha Berger via Avodah) 10. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 11. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/494286688/Ohr-Somayach-Logo-150sq_bigger.jpg] Showering During the Nine Days?! by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz tinyurl.com YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger , avodah The General Discussion Area for Avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"; format="flowed" On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , llevine at stevens.edu, Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 From: elazar teitz via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: elazar teitz , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:13:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? Message-ID: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:14:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: From "Religion Within Reason" by Steven Cahn: "To have faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . To describe someone as a person of faith suggests that the individual is strong-willed, fearless, and unwavering." Question to all - what percentage of the frum world have no doubts? How many don't think about it at all? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 05:11:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering during the Nine days In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: see: Is it permissible to shower during the Nine Days? http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/is-it-permissible-to-shower-during-nine.html [or -mi] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:09:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? I am in the middle of R' Mordechai Torczyner's (CC-ed, please include him in replies) shiurim on ribis. http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&category=0,234696 In particular, shiurim no.s 3-5 are about refunds. It's under 2 hrs total, and if you know something of the sugya, 1.25x speed is doable. The first lines of the source sheet to those shiurim is "Lamah yeish chiyuv lehachzir ribis?" http://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=529082 If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:17:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih but not a tikkun for the lav) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 19:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Torczyner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim >> was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. >> If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would >> be subject to maaser kesafim. ... > Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is > something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih > but not a tikkun for the lav) > KT Hi R' Joel, Indeed, the Ritva's view is that ribbis, once paid, belongs to the creditor. The creditor is obligated to pay it back, but the money is his for purposes including Kiddushin. Other applications include whether the borrower has the power to forgive the repayment, and whether the creditor's heirs have a duty to repay. Kol tuv, Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 10:19:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:19:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c1d64f4e4564ec7b59a1d187400d9bd@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." ============================== I'd appreciate specific examples ============================== Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== I finally tracked down a copy of the book and read through it-I?d simply say that one must underline heavily the statement ?the best of what was known to them in their time? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:09:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> I read Rachel Levmore's "Decentralizing Religious Authority" at Teaser: Overview Orthodox Jewish life used to be a simpler matter for those who wanted to lead one. There was an unspoken system in place. One could approach the local rabbi with a question. If he didn't know, scholars higher up in the "hierarchy" could weigh in until the question reached the "gadol hador." Despite the plurality of approaches which always existed, there was a definitive address whose opinion would be accepted by all (or almost all). Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone. The present circumstances, which have witnessed a breakdown of authority in general society coupled with the absence of an uncontested authoritative Torah scholar, has led to absurd situations. Lacking agreed-upon "gedolim" today, a void exists... Without any proper halakhic discourse between various rabbis who deem themselves to be leaders (even if they lack followers)... And so on, with a pretty sociological take on the problem, and how it applies to controversy over the halachic prenup. As is usual for me, I'm intrigued by the theoretical meta-issue. Given that we've entered an era that there is a dirth of gedolim whose rulings are followed across multiple communities and eidot, is there a significant change to how halakhah is done? And I'm not saying this is entirely about nisqatnu hadoros, and how today's gedolim aren't like those of my youth. Some of it is also the effects of universal education, google, social-media cynicism and echo chamber, and the social trends that cause the popularity of such social media, and other societal changes that made people less likely to respect authority that isn't fully in agreement with what they decided the truth should be. Returning to snipping from the article: The Internet is not the forum for halakhic rows. Rabbinic tradition prescribes that halakhic disputes be conducted in depth, not superficially through "virtual" statements in cyberspace. Proper procedure dictates that rabbinic forums be held where differences of opinions can be [19]discussed face to face. If that is not possible, then [20]scholarly books are written or [21]rabbinic articles published. Alarmist attempts to create fear among innocent lay-people cannot be considered credible halakhic writing. And: [I]t is not for naught that the Mishnah directs us to choose who is our rabbi: [24]aseh lekha rav. It is your responsibility as a God-fearing Jew to determine which rabbi you will follow, according to your perception of his righteousness, scholarship, and derekh--philosophy of Jewish life. For a variety of reasons, it should be a rabbi who lives in the same community as you, not least since he would then be familiar with the challenges and facts of your life. In the United States, the Rabbinical Council of America has assembled an impressive body of rabbinic figures... Visible links ... 19. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-plea-from-Jerusalem-to-the-worlds-Orthodox-rabbis-483210 20. https://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%94.html?id=FpsqQwAACAAJ 24. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en My first stab at answering my own question is to wonder how long halakhah has been centralized around a few globally known gedolim. >From the geonim until the late 19th century, were there any? And even when there was a few posqim the whole world turned to (eg the geonim), how many question did they go to the gedolim for? Wouldn't the size of the world back then mean that most questions were far more local, with the mara de'asra having much more of a final say, with consensus being more of a regional thing? If halachic authority is being decentralized, is that something new, or a reversion to the norm, to how non-Sanhedrin (or as the Rambam would have it, post-talmudic) halakhah supposed to work? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:19:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:32:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170728203214.GA6178@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:38:18AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and : historical... But not the fantastical ones. Zev and I are arguing over two things: 1- What that includes. Zev believes that the inclusion of miracles does not make a medrash fantastical. And in fact to believe so be apiqursus. (Actually, Zev said the believer would be an apiqoreis; but the question whether every believer in apiqursus is necessarily an apiqoreis is far afield. So I'll still to this less controversial subset of his claim.) I disagree. The Rambam associates nissim with nevu'ah. Someone who lacks the yedi'ah to get one isn't going to be around to witness the other. Therefore, aggadic stories of miracles placed after Tanakh are fantastical. While Hashem could still in principle perform nissim, the Rambam believes He wouldn't. (Even when the story is told of a member of chazal and their level of ruach haqodesh.) 2- Is there a default? Zev understands that the default is to take a medrash historically, unless it must be ruled out. Again, I disagree. Medrashim are described as metaphors and riddles. The story and its historical content just isn't an issue. You can't assume anything about a medrash being historical or ahistorical qua medrash. A good bit of history and a good tall tale can be used equally well for teaching by metaphor. Implying, you would need outside reason to assume one or the other. Which is how the Rambam then says that if the story doesn't fit how the world works physically, metaphysicall or theologically -- ie what that translation I googled up called "fantastic" -- insisting its historical when it can't be is silly. So: : Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are : other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could : attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Be happy, no one in this conversation does. In my understanding of Zev's view, the Rambam says that any medrash that isn't impossible (and nissim are possible) should be assumed to be historical. In my view, wondering about the historicity of the story misses the whole point of medrash. But if the story does not fit the way Hashem runs the universe -- which according to the Rambam would include miracle stories happening after Malakhi, and many of the stories before -- assume it is ahistorical. : early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at : the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for : any other reason than to understand the historical facts. The Rambam there has outside reason to believe that medrashic description; it fit what the Nabatean Agriculture implied abot the birth of their religion. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:00:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 05:00:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: True, especially in the MO/DL world. The site had an article a few months ago about how the MO/DL simply aren't looking for gedolim or they define the role of a gadol in way that strips him of much of this supposed authority. Ben On 7/28/2017 10:19 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 14:51:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From ?Religion Within Reason? by Steven Cahn: ?To have > faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes > beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . It depends on what he means by "putting aside" one's doubts. If "putting aside" means that one does have doubts, but denies this fact, and acts as if his faith was complete, this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and in general, A Bad Thing. It is comparable to one who feigns humility; the odds of an eventual implosion are too high. Rather, one must be honest about his doubts or questions, and work on resolving them. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:12:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Math behind kulan chayav Message-ID: <20170730031250.GA2671@aishdas.org> "Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince." Lachlan J. Gunn, et al. Proceedings of The Royal Society A. To be published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00900 Magazine article on said paper (H/T R/Dr Josh Backon): https://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html This paper focuses on the case of identifying a criminal in a police line-up, archeological evidence, and crypography testing, but I'll just use the first as an example. Sometimes a line-up is like picking out an apple out of a group of bananas. But usually, there is measurable probability of error. Whether it's 48% for a criminal who runs through the crime scene or the probability of mistaking one's kidnapper, there is always some probability of error. Now, what's the probability that no one makes that error? If 10 people unanimously identify the same person, is it more likely that no one made the rror, or that there is a systemic bias leading people to select the same member of the line-up? This paper shows the math (and has plots for various probabilities of error). It takes far fewer people than you'd think before a unanimous finding becomes suspicious. And the paper even cites the din as precedent: However, this is not necessarily the case and more confirmations can surprisingly disimprove our confidence that the defendant has been correctly identified as the perpetrator. This type of possibility was recognised intuitively in ancient times. Under ancient Jewish law [13], one could not be unanimously convicted of a capital crime -- it was held that the absence of even one dissenting opinion among the judges indicated that there must remain some form of undiscovered exculpatory evidence. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 07:48:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20). I am attending a Bris on Tisha B'Av. May I say "Mazal Tov" to the baby's father? If I meet a sick person on Tisha B'Av, may I wish him a "Refuah Shleimah" (a full recovery)? Are these also prohibited forms of greeting? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l rules that Mazal Tov for a recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B'Av since it is considered a blessing and not a greeting (Dirshu M.B. Beiurim and Musofim 554:63 citing Halichos Shlomo Bein HaMitzorim Vol. 15 Orchos Halacha 30). However, if at all possible, one should wait for a different day to express this Mazal Tov (Chut Sheini Vol. 2 p. 327). Our minhag is to perform a Bris on Tisha B'Av after the Kinos are completed, even if it is before Chatzos (mid-day), because of Zerizim makdimim l'Mitzvos, those who serve Hashem with alacrity, do mitzvos as quickly as possible (Mechaber, Rama 559:7 and Mishna Berurah ibid s.k. 26). Rav Shlomo Zalman was of the opinion that one can certainly say "Mazal Tov" at the Bris even before Chatzos (ibid). Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l however rules that the Mazal Tov for the Bris should only be said after Chatzos (Dirshu M.B. ibid citing Shmaitza D'Moshe p. 431). Although "Sholom Aleichim" should not be said to an Avel (one who is in mourning), the Gesher HaChaim (21:67:7) permits wishing "Refuah Shleima" to an Avel who is ill, since this is considered a blessing and not a greeting. For the same reason it is permitted on Tisha B'Av to wish a "Refuah Shleima" to a person who is ill (Dirshu M.B. ibid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 10:24:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:48pm GMT, Professor L. Levine quoted today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis: : Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" : "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend : is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20)... I'm going to use this to share the quick thought in my most recent blog post: The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. Tzom qal! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 11:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 31/07/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say > "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the > table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time that day is a fast rather than a yomtov. Though we still hold out hope that that was last year. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time : that day is a fast rather than a yomtov... That was obviously my intent. HOWEVER... We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent ge'ulah. So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust. After all, a commemoration of the ge'ulah after Galus Edom would be far more compelling. (I mentioned this to someone after Maariv, and he suggested that since neither July or August line up with our months that well, maybe it'll be Tish'ah beLeo. I don't think it has the same commemorative quality.) -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 03:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Menuchah Schwat via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. > So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it > Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust... Tisha baChamishi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 06:27:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 8/1/2017 6:01 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used to be a day of mourning?" Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 08:40:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:27:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: :> We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent :> ge'ulah. ... : Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which : is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha : B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used : to be a day of mourning?" What's that "um" about? The month names being Babylonian is a given sitting behind the sentence you quote. It's an often referred to Y-mi, RH 1:2 (vilna 6a) "De'amar R' Chanina: shemos chadashim alu beyadam miBavel." Then going on to mention some pre-Bavli month names found in Tanakh - Risanim, Bul, Ziv, showing how that all changes in Nechemia and Esther. Sure, when talking about 9 beAv the fast, we may well teach them we called it 9 beAv. But, as I suggested in the OP, maybe after the ge'ulah from Galus Edom, we'll do the same with the Julian / Gregorian month names. It will, after all, be a much more momentus ge'ulah, being final and lasting. If Anshei Keneses haGedolah thought it was appropriate to commemorate one ge'ulah in this manner, perhaps we should assume al achas kamah vekamah the end of our current galus would be commemorated similarly. On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:01:50PM +0300, Menuchah Schwat wrote: : Tisha baChamishi That's ambiguous. The chumash uses "bachodesh" to be clearer about which is the day count, and which is the month. Even if the month number is a cardinal ("-i" - fifTH) and the day is an ordinal (no suffix) the way you wrote them. You don't explain *why* you think we'd go back to the biblical system, rather than commemorating the ge'ulah from Galus Edom. After all, even the nevi'im didn't stick to the original numbered months. And I think my suggested parallel makes /some/ sense, if not necessarily what the Sanhedrin will end up deciding. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kinos: Hashem as Spaceman? In-Reply-To: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In Kinah #7 (Aholi Asher Ta'avta), the Kalir wrote "v'nihyeita ketas bechalal". To our ears this evokes images of loneliness and isolation, of someone surrounded by vacuum, light-years from anywhere and anyone, but what did "chalal" even mean to people with a Ptolemaic model (if that) of the universe? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:34:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 14:34:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av Message-ID: I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana ---------------------- I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it even is one), I think you are doing OK! -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 15:04:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <187d2f.769a1cbd.46b254d0@aol.com> From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah " >> There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. << Kol tuv, Ilana >>>>>> What you did instinctively was the right thing to do. Here is what Eliyahu Kitov says in _The Book of Our Heritage_: --quote-- It is prohibited to greet one's friend or acquaintance on Tisha B'Av, and it is even prohibited to say "Good morning." If, however, one is greeted, he should answer in a low tone, in order not to arouse resentment." --end quote-- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 21:51:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:51:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed Message-ID: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand that not everyone agrees with this position). Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can determine where the issur actually is? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 23:57:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB, quoting Rachel Levmore: > Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox > Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. > Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, > Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef were still alive and active. And if someone writes a similar article in another few decades, perhaps some of today's great poskim will have been added posthumously to the list... Not to be cynical, but could it be that one of the factors that makes a gadol universally recognized and accepted across Orthodoxy is that he is no longer among the living? Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 04:18:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:18:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed In-Reply-To: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> References: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 02/08/17 00:51, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har > Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess > information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can > certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand > that not everyone agrees with this position). > > Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur > karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can > determine where the issur actually is? *Any* case where we got new information. Take the classic case of two pieces of fat, one shuman and one chelev, but one doesn't know which is which, and then one later finds out. Before finding out both were assur; if one ate one of them beshogeg one brings an asham and the other piece remains assur. Once the new information is acquired the shuman becomes permitted, and if it transpired that one ate the chelev one must now bring a chatas. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 05:07:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from the OU: > The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra > Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as > greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" > (Mechaber 554:20). ... ... > > Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l rules that Mazal Tov for a > recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B?Av since it is > considered a blessing and not a greeting. ... ... I honestly don't understand the distinction that causes a "greeting" to be assur, while allowing a "blessing" to be mutar. I would think that "good morning" is a blessing. Aren't we praying that the other person's morning will be a good one? Perhaps the distinction is in the degree of kavana with which the "good morning" is given and received. After all, if it were said as a blessing, and received as one, then wouldn't we respond to the "good morning" with something like "amen"? Perhaps we can prove "good morning" to be a mere greeting, by pointing out that the response is usually a perfunctory repeat of the words "good morning", rather than anything serious. In this light, I confidently suggest that "How are you?" is definitely a greeting, because usually no one expects a response other than "okay" or "fine". What of the Mechaber's halacha of "Shalom Aleichem"? Surely we would agree that "Shalom Aleichem" is a blessing, no? After all, the response to "Shalom Aleichem" is "Aleichem Shalom", and I suspect (YMMV) that this is usually sincere rather than perfunctory. This brings us to the very core of this halacha: RSZA is drawing a line between greeting and blessing, and his halacha about Mazel Tov makes no sense (to me) unless "Shalom Aleichem" is defined as the prototypical *greeting*, and *not* a blessing. I can't imagine why this would be so, unless the Mechaber already felt that "Shalom Aleichem" was usually said perfunctorially. And that's sad. Can anyone offer a different analysis of these various phrases? Finally, it seems to me that "perfunctory" is a good summary of why we can bring American money into a bathroom, despite the words "In God We Trust" being on them: Those words have become a mere perfunctory slogan, and are no longer a real statement of faith. But if we have downgraded "Shalom Aleichem" from blessing to greeting with that same logic, then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? Do any other poskim make this distinction (either in Hilchos Tish'a B'av, or in Hilchos Aveilus, or for that matter in Hilchos What Not To Do Before Shacharis) between a greeting and a blessing? I'd love to see it defined more clearly. (There was a point in my life when if I'd sneeze and someone would say "God bless you", my response was "Amen". But I stopped that fairly quickly as people tended to find my response quite jarring. Maybe "God bless you" is also in the category of a perfunctory greeting that should not be done on Tish'a B'av?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 06:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170802132730.GB27820@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:57:08AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack : of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef : were still alive and active... In the US, recognition of R' Henkin and RMF were near-universal. And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. In Israel, I think the most recent candidates are pre-Shas ROY and RSZA. Although ROY's pesaqim are distinctly Sepharadi, I think it's commonly accepted that Yabia Omer is one of the few sefarim written in my lifetime people will be learning centuries from now. My mention of pre-Shas points to something I think is one of the causes. The search for "daas Torah" on political and societal matters makes enemies and cynics from among those who disagree. As for RSZA, RALichtenstein notes that he posessed a gedulah different in kind, not just degree [inevitable nisqatnu hadoros], than those we've looked up to since. I highly recommend "Im Da'at Ein, Manhigut Minayin?" . In it RAL defends da'as Torah as a doctrine, but questions if anyone since RSZA has been qualified to have it. To quote my own pitgam from past posts: A gadol is tall enough to see over our fences. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 09:05:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Eleazar Hakalir Message-ID: Yesterday during the fast, I was reading about R. Eleazar Hakalir, and was struck by the fact that historians aren't sure when he lived, with some saying he lived during Mishnaic times and others saying he lived as late as the 11th century. I realize that pinpointing dates during this time period is difficult, but a 900 year swing seems very unusual. Is anyone familiar with any recent papers or articles that attempts to zero in on the real date when this poet lived? Any additional info appreciated. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 18:25:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170803012513.GC16841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: :> I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, :> but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk :> hurting his feelings. : I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it : even is one), I think you are doing OK! I am wondering whether cheerfully (rather than pro-forma, yotzei-zain, replying so as not to offend) greeting someone in this situation despite 9 beAv is an instance of huterah or dekhuyah. (Thus overanalyzing your parenthetic remark.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 4 13:52:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: ?A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha *minyanim* questioned my saying "*y'yasheir kochacha*" to one of the *olim* (FWIW, I was the *bal qorei*) and, a few min.s later, brought to the *bimah* an Artscroll-*dinim* paragraph (from the back of its 9Av *siddur*) about not greeting someone; my response, as you might guess, was that "*y'yasheir* /*yeeshar kochacha*" was not a greeting. A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "*Shalom aleichem*", like M'gilas Rus' "*H' imachem* // *y'varechcha H'*", is also a blessing, but the "problem"? comes up when it's utilized as a greeting. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 5 23:33:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:33:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and fish blood? we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking liquid and almond milk? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within > their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 04:29:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <221F9E1E-C833-4DA1-83A2-577056D221BF@cox.net> R? Akiva wrote: ?.then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? I would say the reason is that Shalom is one of God?s Names. There was once a study done on people?s responses to ?How are you?? The respondent was supposed to answer in the negative. So instead of saying ?fine, thank you,? the response would be either ?terrible,? ?awful,? ?not good,? etc. and guess what? Something like 90% would not even have realized the negative response. In other words, it is very perfunctory when someone greets someone else in a normal setting. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 09:55:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table > and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher > but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. > What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and > fish blood? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? > we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table > at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond > milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking > liquid and almond milk? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring white milk looking liquid to the meaty dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? I suspect that in both cases, you are noting the explicit prohibition against doing these things and then you are presuming that these prohibitions apply *only* to these specific foods. Then, having made that presumption, you are asking why this distinction exists. I suggest that this is an improper procedure. It would be more correct to note the prohibition about these specific things, and then to *ASK* whether the prohibition also applies to similar things. You might find that the prohibition *does* extend to other things: Example #2: Soy milk. When pareve coffee creamers first became easily available, they were all soy-based. Yet the hashgachos warned us to serve it only in the original container, precisely because of the halacha you cite. Example #1: Suppose you have a lightly-cooked steak in your plate. Some "red blood looking liquid" is leaking out of the meat onto the plate, and is absorbed into the mashed potatoes. There's no issur against those potatoes. I'm pretty sure you can even mix it up into the potatoes deliberately, or dip your bread into it and eat it. But can you pour it out of the plate, into a glass and *drink* it? I don't know. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 13:44:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Lecture from Herzog Yemei Iyun Message-ID: <25bb89bf-b093-17da-6af7-7c80276a5d1a@zahav.net.il> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXeFDdchKY One of the lectures at this year's Yemei Iyun at Herzog: Rav Bazaq (Har Etzion) and Rav Kashtiel (Yeshivat Eli) explain a story in Nach (Isha HaShunamite) each in his way. In doing so, they try to demonstrate the differences in approach between what is called "Tanach b'Gova Einayim" and "HaKav". According to a story that I read about this lecture, this was the first time, after years and years of fighting (sometimes extremely fierce fighting) between proponents of each approach, that two people got together and gave a lesson together. There have been conferences where each side explains why their approach is good and the other side is wrong, but this is the first time that two people taught together. The lectures are in conversational Hebrew. Besides the demonstration of the different approaches, the lectures themselves about the story are fantastic. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 22:20:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:20:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom haAtzamut. Ben On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Micha Berger wrote: > >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. > > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? > > Akiva Miller \ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 07:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> References: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170807140514.GC15062@aishdas.org> : On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > R' Micha Berger wrote: : >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within : >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. : > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom : haAtzamut. I knew he was capable of it because I know several such stories. In the future, try to remember everything I wrote over all of Avodah's 19 years' history. It would save me time. I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning something that non-intuitive. Including when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 18:45:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:45:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with > the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning > something that non-intuitive. I was trying to come up with a snappy comeback, but the truth is that I simply have a rotten memory. Or, perhaps, the non-intuitive stuff is lost more easily, precisely because the anti-intuitiveness makes it more difficult for the brain to reconstruct the chain of links. We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. > when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. > RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if > it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." I wish I had been aware of these shades of gray when I was younger. Thank you for sharing. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 07:29:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:54PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is : how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is : the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult : to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical reasons given: 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish model.) 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the community. (The usual Chassidish model.) 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from DT in general when he left Agudah.) #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and not necessarily personal ones. Here we're talking about halakhah. So, I'd like to see if we can discuss the flipside of the discussion. Rather than asking about the heteronomy of following gedolei haposqim and why today's posqim seem to be failing getting that kind of fealty from certain large segments of the masses, what about the autonomy end? We have a very literate masses. More people can hit the primary sources themselves. And for those who can't, oir lack the patience to, there are more secondary and tertiary sources available in laaz than ever before. Joys of computerized publishing, which has made producing a book cheaper than ever. In this world, how much autonomy should a sho'el assume for himself? Which questions don't need asking? I presume a wide variety of opinion; I am more interested in various rationales than in any particular answer. What about the LOR -- do you have thoughts about when he should field the question, and when he should punt to his own rav or to a gadol? And does the ease at which anyone can be reached anywhere on the globe matter? Universal education, telecom, the web's ability to provide instand "research" are all bottom-up reasons our authority is being decentralized. With little to do on those elegable to assume that authority vs those of the past. Although the ease of LH and motzi sheim ra about those rabbanim with today's tech does enter into it to, r"l. If no one can become a navi in his childhood neighborhood, today's world makes it harder and harder to leave that effect. My own feeling is that anyone of East European ancestry who was not higi'ah lehora'ah who faces a new (for them) situation and doesn't get a sense of consensus from the Chayei Adam, Qitzur, MB and AhS should be asking a she'eilah. Notice that shows my own bias against popularist guides. Unless said guide was written by or recommended by one's poseiq as a viable resource. And in terms of autonomy vs heteronomy, I would be seeking a poseiq who (1) convinces me of the soundness of his reasoning; and (2) is willing to work with my givens on things like hashkafah and beliefs about metzi'us, where there are no rules of pesaq. As in RMF's pesaq about Hallel on YhA. (Tangent: Notice that there is little connection between pesaq and hashkafah on this one. RYBS, the Zionist, adhered to a meta-halakhah in which the barriers to saying Hallel are high, and came out against. As a compromise for LORs whose mispallelim won't tolerate that, he would advise the rav to pasqen that they omit the berakhah. Whereas RMF told Zionists that leshitasam, it would be appropriate to say Hellal WITH a berakhah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 08:45:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Kashrus of Braekel Message-ID: <20170808154508.GA12433@aishdas.org> They're now importing to EY from Europe a new breed of chicken, the braekel. See http://www.baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=37&ARTICLE_ID=90778 ... Members of the Eida Charedis' Vaad Shechita, prominent rabbonim and kashrus experts gathered in the home of Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita to determine if a new chicken, imported from Europe, has a kosher status. The discussion lasted for four hours! The new bird is called Braekel, and according to HaGaon HaRav Sternbuch, the bird is not kosher. However, in Bnei Brak, HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita has ruled it is kosher. The chicken was raised in Europe in an area void of Jews and Rav Sternbuch feels it lacks the `mesora' required. Wikipedia reports that it is indeed Gallus gallus domesticus, actual chicken in scientific taxonomy. And The Brakel is not cultivated for its meat, but merely for its egg-laying qualities. The breed is capable of producing 180 to 200 white eggs a year. This isn't remotely like the leghorn, a breed of chicken that has 2 "thumbs" and 2 other toes per claw, rather than the usual for kosher birds -- 1 "thumb" and 3. And it's accepted as kosher, in fact, the source of most of our eggs here in the states. But the breakel has normal simanim. For that matter, according to some pesaqim about why we can eat turkey (the context in which the kashrus of leghorn chickens most often comes up) we even accept Meleagris gallopavo, turkey, as being within the mesorah for chickens and they aren't even in the same genus! Third wiki-note, commenting on the two subtypes of braekel chicken that have since interbread into one: In the UK, USA and Australia, however, one can still find descendants of the Kempische Brakel under its old name 'Campine'. The Campine has evolved differently from the Brakel. The most noticeable difference is the hen-feathering of the rooster and the lower weight. We in the US are treating a bird that evolved (nishtanah hateva, if you prefer) from the breakel as kosher; no one requires checking if an egg is campine or not. It's not even like the mesorah has been silent; even if each breed of G. gallus domesticus needs it's own mesorah. So, lo zakhisi lehavin RMS's reluctance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 09:27:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> References: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <69647634-1f0b-8686-3b9b-f1fe2958ab37@sero.name> On 08/08/17 10:29, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning > to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical > reasons given: > > 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and > ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish > model.) > > 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the > community. (The usual Chassidish model.) > > 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would > ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to > Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the > current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and > doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, > and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from > DT in general when he left Agudah.) > > #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and > not necessarily personal ones. #4 All true knowledge is in the Torah, and finding it is a matter of making non-obvious connections. Therefore someone who has absorbed enough of it to do so can find the correct answer to anything, though he may not be able to explain how he did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 12:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hebrew manuscripts Message-ID: A database of ancient Hebrew manuscripts is now available at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLIS/en/ManuScript/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 18:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel Message-ID: . This past October (in Avodah 34:130) I mentioned a practice that I've seen growing in recent years, that of making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. I was learning about the issur of eating a large seudah on Erev Shabbos, and I came across something that seems very relevant to that practice. Form the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod Hashabbos" writes: "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 21:21:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:21:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142a02db-9198-65c3-9f5d-1b882fc5f525@sero.name> On 08/08/17 21:24, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of > appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, > making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." However, "to`ameha chayim zachu". Tasting a little of the Shabbos dishes, as opposed to gorging oneself on them, is very much kevod Shabbos, to increase the anticipation, like a sneak preview. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 11:58:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the : reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with : which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod : Hashabbos" writes: : "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of : appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, : making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." These motives have a nadka mina. If one fills up Fri afternoon on food they don't enjoy (perhaps it's healthful) or wouldn't eat in a formal or celebratory setting, one is running afoul of the SA's sevara, but not the PM's. In contrast, having significant amounts of Shabbos-appropriate food but not to the point of ruining one's appetite by the time maariv is over would be a problem according to the PM, but not the SA's sevara. Zev mentioned the case of tasting Shabbos food. The MB 250:2 uses the word "lit'om". The Machzor Vitri cites a lost Y-mi and invokes "to'ameha chaim zakhu" -- I think it's specifically te'imah. As in, less than a kezayis, no berakhah, not really eating. (Which is why I wrote last paragraph about "significant amounts".) It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. BUT.... The whole point of chulent is to have hot food in Shabbos lunch, to fulfill the obligation (SA OC 271:3) of making it the more special meal. (Rather than Fri night dinner. See Shaarei Teshuvah #1.) The AhS says one is not obligated to abstain from special Shabbos-lunch foods Fri night. But I'm talking about Thu night, altogether before Shabbos. O Seems to me that until someone finds a new "special Shabbos lunch food", Thu night chulent ought to be prohibited! Whereas one SHOULD just taste the chulent on Fri, and it is permitted (but sub-optimal) to have some with Fri night dinner. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 22:14:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:14:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Not just yeshiva guys. It has become a minor trendy thing for all sort of people to travel to Bnei Braq to get chulent. On 8/9/2017 8:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". > My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and > Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment > near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 04:43:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (=?utf-8?B?157XoNeV15fXlCDXqdeR15g=?= via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: The Mishna Brura clearly states that the reason for tasting on erev shabbat is "kedei letaken". This refers to tasting during the cooking process and does not fit with the whole kugel minhag. Menucha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 11:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] publishing trends Message-ID: I'd love to hear any analysis (or guesses) as to what are the percentages of different types of sefarim (both Hebrew and English) being published in the current era, how they differ from those in the past and, most interestingly to me, what are the drivers for these trends? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 15:37:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:37:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Milk, Blood and look alikes Message-ID: I fear that the Halachic posture of *Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to?* although making sense from a narrow perspective, actually invites Halachic disaster, and is quite incorrect. Halacha asserts all is permitted unless it is prohibited. Here is an example in which the Shach seems to assert that Maris Ayin is limited to its narrow description and is not to be expanded according to what makes sense to us. BP, those that have been found within a Shechted cow, require Shechita once they have walked about. Before they have walked about they do not require Shechita. However, Ben PeKuAh can also be created via natural breeding which goes on forever. So we can have a large herd of BP none of which are identifiable as BP. The Mechaber Paskens without qualifying, *until they have walked about* - that the naturally born BP all require Shechita. This would appear to suggest that they require Shechita even before they have walked about. And there is good reason to understand this to be the Halacha, after all in this herd there is absolutely no way to identify them as BP whereas those found in a Shechted mother are readily identified as being BP. And I presume that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, the Shach makes it clear that the decree that requires that they be Shechted applies only after they have walked about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 11 07:15:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Summer and Travel Videos Message-ID: <1502460917652.98832@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y8drmxm3 Kosher Summer and Travel Videos As you prepare to fire up the grill for the summer or hit the road on vacation, countless Kashrut issues arise: Can I cook on a public grill in a park? Can I use a hotel room microwave? How should one pray on an airplane? These commonly asked questions and many more will be answered in our 2017 Kosher summer and travel series. Your esteemed guide through this halachic journey? It's none other than Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of OU Kosher. View the questions and answers below! Can you cook on a BBQ that has previously been used for Non-Kosher meat? Can meat and fish be cooked on the same BBQ? Can you eat cut fruit from an uncertified vendor? Can you buy coffee from a non-kosher establishment or a kiosk? May you purchase salad from an uncertified entity when traveling on the road? What products am I permitted to eat from an ice cream store? What are the Halachos in regards to prayer on an airplane? What are the Kashrut issues with airline meals? Can in-room hotel microwaves be used without kashering? Is it permissible to take antihistamines or other medication without certification? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 13 06:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] piskei rid Message-ID: <591d6b28af34484fac75d4f2918958a9@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The bar ilan database notes that its version is from Yad Ha-Rav Herzog. Does anyone have a copy that can see who authored the footnotes? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 02:06:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 07:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken Message-ID: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. See the above URL for more. See also http://tinyurl.com/yckl2bqj YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 08:23:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From > http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h > Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that > he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. Since when is rabbi M any sort if authority in The USA? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 11:28:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:28:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> This whole thing reminds me of the one-a-generation broohaha over leghorn chickens. Leghorns and braekels are chickens, much the way chihuahuas are dogs, despire being rather unique looking dogs -- or chickens. Like other chickens, they are Gallus gallus domesticus. Not even a remote question of problems interbreeding. Every 20 years or so someone notices that the leghorn chicken has two "thumbs" pointing back, and two toes pointing forward, rather than the usual 3-and-1 we expect for kosher birds. And yet, white leghorns make beautifully white eggs, and so it is the breed most American chicken eggs come from. Actually, both it and the braekel chicken do indeed grab the perch in a 2-and-2 grip, once comfortably on it, they go to the 3-and-1 of the rest of the species. And like the leghorn chicken, the braekel chicken is a source of eggs in the US. However, not under the name "braekel". But America's campine chicken, which has the same kind of foot, was breed from the Kempishe Breakel. The question was resolved quite a while ago, which is why we in the US don't have to chase down which breed of chicken an egg came from. So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was raised, we were about to assur, and then it was found that in much of the world zebu was already being eaten as cow. And in fact, MOST tefillin made from gasos are zebu leather! The breakel, which is a normal enough part of the general chicken gene pool to get the usual taxonomical name -- Gallus gallus domesticus. But there are two subspecies of cow: those without a hump between their shoulder are Bos taurus taurus. Those that have such a hump, eg zebu, are Bos taurus indicus. But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can interbreed and produce fertile young, in which case how did any of these questions get started? The mesorah for chickens must therefore include oddballs of the min like leghorn, braekel and campine breeds, and that for cows must include the full min, both subspecies. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 13:42:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <692953b1-38ed-f530-7beb-1656bdc7942d@sero.name> On 14/08/17 14:28, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was > raised, we were about to assur, Very few were about to asser, because the view that a mesorah is needed for mammals is very much a daas yochid. > But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can > interbreed and produce fertile young This is true for mammals, not necessarily for birds. I'd put a different argument: Let's suppose that it *is* a new min, for which no mesorah can exist because it didn't exist until relatively recently. For that very reason we can be 100% certain that it isn't one of the 24 listed species, and therefore doesn't need a mesorah. And if it's *not* a new min then it's a chicken, and once again kosher (except according to Anan ben David y"sh). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 06:36:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:36:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn't this an issue, since they are using less than a revi'is (approximately 3.3 oz. - minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber's question) A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi'is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi'is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi'is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m'lo lugmav (half a revi'is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 14:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170815214945.GA13601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including :> the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha :> follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a :> shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow :> their minhag. Regardless of the shei'ur, so this is perhaps tangential.... The AhS talks about the difficulty in obtaining real wine, the kashrus of "wine" from soaked raisins, and thus the schnapps option. I wonder if so many rabbeim would have insisted on making qiddush on schnapps at all if wine were an affordable option where they lived. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 15:24:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: . R' Ben Waxman asked: > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot > right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the > members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset > on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the > right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine > no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose > money? My first thought is that this is a great example of a question that should be addressed to the rav of the beit knesset. There are so many factors that need to be weighed against each other, such as how badly the shul needs the money, and how many hurt feelings will be created by giving the wrong answer. As regards the comment "a sale is a sale" -- I'm not so sure. Sounds like a "davar shelo ba laolam" to me. Especially since we are considering the real possibility that a kohen guest might show up, rendering the auction questionable. Just my two grush. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 02:54:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Use of Stone Keilim During Bayis Sheini Message-ID: <20170816095450.GA3826@aishdas.org> See http://www.timesofisrael.com/2000-year-old-stone-workshop-discovered-near-where-jesus-turned-water-into-wine or http://j.mp/2v1gxan The Times of Israel By Amanda Borschel-Dan August 10, 2017, 11:51 am 2,000-year-old stone workshop discovered near where Jesus turned water into Only four Second Temple stoneware production centers have been unearthed in Israel Because it was immune to ritual impurity, the use of stoneware was rife among Jews during the Roman era ... A large 2,000-year-old Second Temple period chalkstone quarry and workshop was discovered at Reina in lower Galilee by a team of archaeologists headed by Dr. Yonatan Adler... A manmade chalkstone quarry cave was recently discovered between between Nazareth and the village of Kana. What is unique in this excavation is the additional find of a stoneware workshop -- one of only four in Israel. Although pottery was also in use during this period, archaeological digs around the region point to an uptick in stoneware during the Second Temple period -- likely for ritual purity reasons, as attested in the Talmud. "In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee also used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone," said Adler. ... "According to ancient Jewish ritual law, vessels made of pottery are easily made impure and must be broken. Stone, on the other hand, was thought to be a material which can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce some of their everyday tableware from stone," he said. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 04:45:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:45:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh Message-ID: . At first, I was going to pose these nitpicky questions on our Mesorah list. But then I found some answers, and I decided to share my journey with the whole chevra. If it doesn't put you to sleep from boredom, please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Shmos 1:10 - Paro starts panicking over the Jewish Problem. First, they're multiplying, and then, "ki sikrena milchama..." 1. What is the root of Sikrena? Kuf resh aleph, or kuf resh heh? 2a. If it is kuf resh heh - "if war happens" - then what is the aleph for? Is this a kri/ksiv situation? Does anyone explicitly refer to it as a kri/ksiv? 2b. If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? Why does every single translation and peirush render it as "if war occurs", or similar? Or do you know of any exceptions that I couldn't find? 3. What form is this word? My guess is that it is Kal, future, 3rd person feminine plural: "They(f) will...". That fits well with "proclaim", if "they(f)" refers to the attacking nations. But if the root is kuf resh heh, I don't know why the plural would be used. Is "milchama" some sort of plural or collective noun? Other relevant information: RSR Hirsch says that "sikrena" is a plural form, and therefore "milchama" is probably not the subject but the object. for the word's meaning, he refers us to Yeshaya 41:22, where this same word occurs. But as I see it, these words are not spelled the same: Where Shemos spells it with an aleph, Yeshaya has a yud. (I suppose Rav Hirsch considers this difference insignificant, but I'm not knowledgable enough to understand why.) I did find one lone voice who says that the root of "sikrena" is "read/call" and not "happen/occur". Namely, Mandelkern's Concordance. Yeshaya 41:22 appears on 1047d, in the root kuf-resh-heh. But he places our pasuk, Shemos 1:10, on 1043c, in the root kuf-resh-aleph. Another data point from Mandelkern: His opinion is that "sikrena" in Shemos 1:10 is a third-person plural verb. This is different from the second-person plural verb, which is spelled exactly the same, and appears in Rus 1:20 and 1:21, and in the Concordance on 1042a. I suspect that Mandelkern would endorse "*they* will proclaim war" as a correct translation. Finally, I tried a non-Jewish website devoted to translation issues. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7122.htm is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, and other similar sources. I probably could have gotten the same information from Mandelkern, but seeing their English translation on-screen made these examples jump out at me: Bereshis 42:4 - [Yaakov] said, "Lest disaster *happen* [to Binyamin]." Bereshis 49:1 - Yaakov said, "... I will tell you what will *happen* to you at the end of days." Vayikra 10:19 - Aharon told Moshe, "... such has *happened* to me..." Devarim 22:6 - When you *happen* upon a bird's nest... In all of the above, the Torah's word is spelled with a kuf-resh-ALEPH root. I find myself forced to concede that there is strong evidence (dare I call it "proof"?) that in addition to the usual meanings "read" and "call", kuf-resh-aleph can also mean "happen". Having said that, I was tempted to take this even farther. That page on BibleHub brings a lot examples where they translate kuf-resh-aleph as "meet". At first glance, I did not take it seriously; I felt that our common translation as "call" was more appropriate. For example, Shemos 5:3. where Moshe and Aharon tell Paro, "The God of the Hebrews nikra to us, so let us go for three days..." In my mind, this meant "Hashem called to us", and I rejected BibleHub's translation of "... has met with us." But then I read ("happened upon"? pun intended!) ArtScroll's translation, which is "...happened upon us." I was surprised by this, but I was even more surprised when I saw RSR Hirsch on this pasuk, where he tells us to look at Shemos 3:18, where he shows that these two roots (kuf resh aleph and kuf resh heh) are indeed similar. And so I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to translate Shemos 1:10 as "when a war happens". Does all this teach us anything about the small aleph in Vayikra 1:1? I leave that as an exercize for the reader. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 10:41:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish > or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? I don't think "proclaiming war" is something that can even happen in Hebrew. One can call *for* war, but the lamed is necessary. I can't think of any direct examples right now, but consider the parallel "vekarasa eleha leshalom". On the other hand we do have "ukrasem deror". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:25:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected cohen guest is the only option. If it is the aliyah itself which is sold then the cohen should be able to claim the shul had no right to sell it, and the choshen mishpat shailah is whether the shul or the buyer takes the loss. Obviously just my opinion not meant to second guess the mara d'atra. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? > > If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? > > If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:34:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:18 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I wonder if everyone agrees with the Machstzis Hashekel, i.e., would everyone agree that if you hold like the Taz the you can make kiddush on it? I was startled by the conclusion until I realized that "their minhag" refers to their own minhag, the the minhag of the Rebbes mentioned in the previous sentence. Still odd though, surely this is a psak halacha not a minhag. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn?t this an issue, since they are using less than a revi?is (approximately 3.3 oz. ? minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber?s question) > A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi?is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi?is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. > > Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi?is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m?lo lugmav (half a revi?is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. > > Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 15:22:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502922161954.91323@stevens.edu> Please see the article sent to me by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky that I have posted at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 04:55:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate Message-ID: A work around for agunot wanting to have kids: Rav Yitzhaq Yosef* ruled that an IVF child isn't a mamzer in a case of a married woman having her egg fertilized with the sperm of a man who who isn't her husband. Now an MK wants to use this psak to enable agunot to conceive via IVF and her kids won't have mamzerut problems (and have the treatment paid for by the state). * Yes other rabbis have given this ruling but when the Chief Rabbi gives a psak it gives a stronger basis for a knesset member to propose a law. See the article for more details (Hebrew): http://bit.ly/2uOmI6x I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A single woman is allowed to get IVF. Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 09:27:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170818162719.GF5755@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:25:19PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen : in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is : the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected : cohen guest is the only option... While I agree with that conclusion, the answer to your opening question was in RBW's post: :> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right :> after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are :> kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning... They sold the aliyah on the presumption that, as usual. And in fact, this "chazaqah" is so solid, RBS asked this eventually as a hypothetical; the wording he thought of was "were ... to come" not "when ... does come". Perhaps there was originally an al-tenai that simply people no longer remember. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:46:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818174604.GH5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:52:59PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha : minyanim questioned my saying "y'yasheir kochacha" to one of the olim ... : A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) : dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "Shalom aleichem", like M'gilas Rus' "H' : imachem // y'varechcha H'", is also a blessing, but the "problem" comes : up when it's utilized as a greeting. My rule: If said as a social pleasantry, or as a mindless playback of a recording your parents / society taught you, it's a greeting. But if you care more about whether the RBSO heard you than the person you're saying it about, it's a berakhah. And usually it's somewhere between those poles. With a skew toward the greeing end. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:02:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:02:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A : single woman is allowed to get IVF. I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei mi shelo nivra". But... This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless worse than never existing at all? (I adapted that line from arguments about aborting a fetus that tests positive for Downs. How many people with Downs hate their life so much that they regret existing?) : Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Marriage as described in Bereishis 1, perhaps. "Peru urevu umil'u es ha'aetz". But the intimacy of Bereishis 2 is not adressed "... al kein ya'azov ish es aviv ve'es imo, vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu lebasar echad". My version of "the talk" with my boys started with these two pesuqim. Explaining that relations are to serve these two functions. And also, while birth control can address one of these two, extramarital relations outside of "vedavaq be'isho" translate into exercises in weakening that bond, that gift HQBH gave us. (Adding now, as this bit would go over their heads: to approximate Adam Qadmon as humanity is described before Adam and Chavah are made from one into two.) And then, after establishing theological context, the talk continued on the usual biological and psychological planes. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 11:27:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses in Judaism Message-ID: R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/ He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American Eclipse of 2017: Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 14:10:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: . On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients. I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. > ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient > with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the > well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov > yisroel", just like many people today. And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then what did they do wrong? The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good description of it, I'd appreciate it.) The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food that even went by another name. And the very first time that they asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained. In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product. Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I wrote here 15 years ago: (http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03) > Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free > breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored > liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I > understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that > assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that > one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff, > and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap > orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice, > isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 11:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:29:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> References: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <529972d5-f946-74d5-e97e-26fbf8cbced3@starways.net> On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural > : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any > : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a > : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A > : single woman is allowed to get IVF. > > I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei > mi shelo nivra". But... I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view. > This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless > worse than never existing at all? Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 17:30:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:30:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, Cheilev and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. Is this correct? Can anyone offer some illumination? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 21:43:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4577e69b-191e-24b3-90cc-757555b83cd6@sero.name> On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... > Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I > don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at their lodgings. Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream? A grocery. >> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient >> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the >> well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov >> yisroel", just like many people today. > And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then > what did they do wrong? This is precisely the AhS's point. He strongly rejects the view of those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens when one does so. > > The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are > "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". > (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good > description of it, I'd appreciate it.) It's schmant in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet cream for coffee. Cf smetana, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour cream is zoyer shmetene. > The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to > what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food technology made everything complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel. (This is why the term "cholov stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used. RMF rejects the idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils its requirements.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 07:17:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: ' R' Zev Sero wrote: > No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type > of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in > Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least > one could before modern food technology made everything > complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to > *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, > etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. Summary: I concede. Longer version: I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as a resident of the 5700s. I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned about such things. I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the, there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly, there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them. There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in 1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the drivers for this change. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 12:04:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:04:07 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: <201708201904.v7KJ47OS022554@hsdm.com> >And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") . From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 22:11:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 01:11:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. > So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, > Cheilev > and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly > think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev. I don't know whether deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something that is identical to chelev so there is no question. (The difference may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone will think it's chelev? Obviously we don't worry about that because an observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to that conclusion?) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 08:37:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk Message-ID: . Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, but we don't hold like him. In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking, eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di" come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds. Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a - <<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds, who don't have mother's milk. >>> Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says it's d'rabanan. We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav", WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di" would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we learn from the word "imo"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 06:32:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse Message-ID: <1503322352892.87303@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 15:09:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis Message-ID: . Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads: > Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so > which bracha should be said? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for > which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the > acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and > great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. > It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. > Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe- > inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? > > Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and > Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh > Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which > are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states > that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's > sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many > commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. > As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses > are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. > > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of anyone else who comments on this question? Thanks! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 16:06:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses : > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah : > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). : : Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of : anyone else who comments on this question? The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses. The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human sin. Wholesale, not retail. The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer to the question in his words. The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who continue ignoring such signs. In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence". At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who aren't religiously moved by it. Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally used language of Wisdom and Intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 17:07:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> References: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b@sero.name> > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer > to the question in his words. That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's servant, the moon. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 04:11:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? Message-ID: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Something doesn?t add up. Every 28 years around April 8th, we recite the birkat hachama (last time, April 8th 2009, next time, April 8th 20037). Every month we recite the blessing over the moon. And as I learned, the ?oseh ma?aseh b?reshis? is over lightening but not over thunder and volcanoes. For thunder and volcanoes I thought we say ?shekocho g?vuroso malei olam.? Regarding an eclipse as an incredible and awe inspiring event, so is being in the presence of a child being born or in the presence of a person having being declared dead, resuscitated back to life. Is there a b?rocho for that? > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 07:16:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170822141651.LBEF22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> I heard a very interesting shiur at yutorah. Everything below was mentioned, plus one other thing: a great explanation of a gemara (or another Chazal) that says something like: "X" comes into the world (X might have been eclipses, or, if not, something related in some way) with four reasons: - not appropriately euglogizing an av beis din - (I can't remember) - homosexuality - the death of two brothers at once (or in battle) (He started the connection my explaining the ma'aseh of the moon's complaint against H' at creation . . . ) Here's the problem with my post: - I got to it via the "featured shiruim" on my YUTorah phone app -- and it's not there now. I went to the desktop site, and I can't seem to find it - I don't remember who it was (except that the rav who gave it over had a middle or eastern European accent) (My excuse: I went to western South Carolina to see the eclipse. The 8 hour drive home turned into almost 13 hours because of traffic, and I drove alone. I heard a lot of shiurim and my mind is pretty fuzzy . . . ) FWIW, -- Sholom At 05:40 AM 8/22/2017, via Avodah wrote: >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 >From: Zev Sero via Avodah >To: Avodah >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis >Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b at sero.name> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't > see an answer > > to the question in his words. > >That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points >out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that >eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or >moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means >that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens >is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or >mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, >even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise >and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when >Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. > >This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural >phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but >Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind >Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. > >This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry >at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them >and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't >they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it >removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun >is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's >servant, the moon. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 17:47:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:47:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness Message-ID: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> There was a discussion on Areivim about a particular person who was accused of committing a particularly evil crime. Someone posted, among other comments, ?I will add that the "rabbi" who committed these horrific acts is objectively G-dless. Apikores is too mild a term for him.? My response to this fits more for Avodah than Areivim: I know this man and most of the other players in this story. And while I haven?t interviewed him recently to test R?n TK?s assertion, it is my opinion that as reprehensible as these events are, it doesn?t mean that the person who committed them is Godless. Is any sinner Godless? More likely, a sinner like this carries around a huge measure of denial and/or conflict. But that doesn?t make him or her Godless. The Gemara says, in fact, that some sinners ? during the moment they?re sinning(!) are close to Hashem (Berachos 63a). I?ll elaborate: In truth, the argument can be made that any time a person sins he or she is Godless. Tomer Devorah in the first perek makes the contrapositive point ? that Shuras HaDin would dictate that Hashem remove himself from a person at the time of his sin, resulting in the sinner?s instant death. His response to that is that Hashem?s mercy is what keeps the person alive ? Hashem does not remove himself from the person, and keeps sustaining him or her even while he or she is sinning with the very power invested by Hashem in them that enables them to sin. But probably most times well-meaning people sin, their sin comes from one of the following three: ignorance, negligence, or lust. Ignorance: Not knowing or remembering something is forbidden. Negligence: Not caring enough to take care not to inadvertently sin. Lust: Being blinded to the evil that one is doing because of the strong desire to benefit from it. In all those cases, the person who is sinning is not thinking about Hashem. He?s ? in your terms ? ?objectively Godless.? But can he really be called that? Let?s talk about two extremes: The person who walks in front of another person who is saying Shemoneh Esrei (relatively minor), vs. the person who is not shomer negiah (relatively major). In both those cases it?s not that the person is not thinking about Hashem (which he admittedly is not), but that the person is not thinking about sin. Or, more succinctly, the person is just not thinking. Not Godless, but thought-less. And that can sum up all of the three categories ? ignorance, negligence, and lust cause people to sin by not thinking. So what happens when a person is a thinker? There are two possibilities. The person can be like Nimrod, "???? ????? ??????? ????? ??" ? he knows Hashem and doesn?t listen to him, although he recognized Hashem?s existence. That?s a plain old Rasha. But he?s not Godless ? ???? ?????. The second possibility is that that person does think about Hashem. He does think about his actions. He does know how bad it is what he?s doing. In other areas, not his weakness, he does keep to Hashem?s will. He is ???? ????? but he?s not ?????? ????? ??. Such a person, I think, is incredibly conflicted. He knows about Hashem and he?s rebelling against him on the one hand, while trying to obey him on the other. That person might be evil, might be scum of the earth, but he?s not Godless. On the contrary. And although we have to condemn such a person and his horrible actions, and we don?t envy his punishment in the World to Come, we might also be a little jealous of his relationship with Hashem. This may well be the reason the Gemara tells us that a person who says Lashon Hara about a talmid chacham falls in Gehennom, since the talmid chacham definitely did Teshuvah (Berachos 19a). How do we know he definitely did teshuvah? Because a talmid chacham, by definition, is a thinker. He didn?t indulge in non-thinking ? that?s not in his nature. And even if he had a moment of weakness and did something wrong, he certainly rebounded and regretted it the next day. (Contrast the talmid chacham with the non-thinker of before ? he just continues blissfully on with his life not realizing or caring that he sinned. That?s why we are not required to presume that he did Teshuvah.) A Godless person, properly defined, is one who denies Hashem?s existence completely. We have no basis, in this case or in many others, to assert that those are the circumstances we?re dealing with. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 23:43:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 06:43:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? On the topic Kvct Joel Rich Sent from my iPhone THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 21:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:06 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: It seems we agree that there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you are, eating what looks for all intents and purposes, to be Cheilev Yet Chazal were not Gozer to prohibit this due to Maris Ayin. Is the physical difference between Cheilev and Shuman more than the difference between fish blood and animal blood? Would there be no confusion between red coloured liquids, like wine and animal blood? There is no MA on Ben PeKuAh that is salvaged as a non-fully-gestated, no matter how long it lives and no matter how much it looks smells tastes and feels like an ordinary beast. Why is that so? Proposing that - IT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO CHEILEV SO THERE IS NO QUESTION - seems a little fantastic And indeed we should ask - why don't we worry that onlookers will think that beef Shuman is Cheilev? Is it OBVIOUS that there is no reason to suspect it is Cheilev, so why jump to that conclusion? I do not think so. I suspect that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies is as a product similar to the prohibited product. Perhaps like the position that Min BeMino is determined by name not by taste, Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 04:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Since when? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 07:09:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> References: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170823140919.GB32207@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:28AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: :> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat : Since when? Tangent: One of my pet peeves about Brisker derekh is how "chalos sheim" often is just begging the question. X needs a P, or else it doesn't really have the chalos sheim X. It's an empty statement, just saying that P is needed because the category needs P. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:13:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:13:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tax Evasion and Esrog purchasing In-Reply-To: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> References: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170825191326.GA15871@aishdas.org> Back in Sep 2014 Every year I mention the problem of buying an esrog from someone who > offers a better price if you pay in cash. Last year I was able to shift > from "li nir'eh it's a problem". RHSchachter reports that according to > RJBSoloveitchik, helping the seller evade taxes in this way is lifnei iver > (deOraisa, not "just" the derabbanan of mesayeia) and THE ESROG IS PASUL. They just put R' Asher Weiss's teshuvah on this subject up at : Tvunah in English Question: I recently went to a store and was told if a pay in cash then i would not need to pay taxes. If it is obvious that by me paying in taxes the store owner would not pay the proper tax on this sale to the government, am I allowed to do such a purchase or there is a problem of [lifnei iveir lo sisein mikhshol]. Answer: This would not seem to be the actual prohibition of Lifnei Iver as cash payment is inherently permissible and he can and may still pay taxes. There are a number of reasons a person would prefer cash payments, aside from tax evasion. At the same time, with regards to taxes we should generally assume Dina Demalchusa Dina and not encourage or promote tax evasion. It would seem RAW agrees on the halakhah, but disagrees that you should be chosheish that the preference for cash is due to tax evasion. Although in the first sentence the sho'el says the salesman told him so outright!? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:29:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:29:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Eilu va'Eilu Message-ID: <20170825192948.GA17720@aishdas.org> Because how can I /not/ share something on eilu va'eilu? -micha ----- Forwarded message from torahweb at torahweb.org ----- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:31:45 -0400 From: torahweb at torahweb.org Subject: updates to Rav Schachter's dvar Torah To: weeklydt at torahweb.org TorahWeb EILU V'EILU Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim -- both opinions are the words of the Living G-d." although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she'ha'Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She'b'al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah. The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether -- according to their perspective -- the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim." This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions imply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v'eilu. Even when we do apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" it does not mean that halacha l'ma'aseh one has the right to follow either opinion. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v'eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, "Beis Shamai b'makom Beis Hille eina Mishna", i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don't even consider the views of Beis Shamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d'hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b'chutz la'aretzm, even when dealing with a d'oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l'hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l'ma'aseh. (See my sefer, B'Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.) Likewise the poskim assume that when you have a shitah y'chida'ah, a lone opinion among poskim not shared by others, this view also does not constitute a slight safeik. The Beis Shmuel (Shulchan Aruch, Even HoEzer siman 90, s'if kattan 6) thinks that even if the Rambam agrees with the Ri Migash on an position not agreed upon by other poskim, this view should be totally ignored, since the Rambam was so taken by the genius of the Ri Migash (his father's rebbe), and would naturally be inclined to accept his opinion without even thinking twice (even though in several instances the Rambam does reject his opinion), this psak would be considered a shitah y'chida'ah and should be totally ignored. It was recently reported that a certain "beis din" permitted a married woman to remarry without a get, because it was ascertained that her husband was not Sabbath observant at the time he married her, and the halacha considers one who is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia to be like a non-Jew. And, they reasoned, we all know that if a non-Jew marries a Jewish woman the marriage does not take effect. This ruling is absolutely scandalous. First of all, the consensus of recent poskim has been that the concept of mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia doesn't apply today since so many Jews are not shomer Shabbos and the term "b'farhesia" has the connotation that this individual is breaking the discipline in the community (Chazon Ish and Binyan Tzion.) The members of this "beis din" would most certainly have been the first to say that such a Jew would not cause wine he touched to become prohibited because he is not considered to be like a non-Jew. More importantly, the view that a Jew who is treated as a non-Jew because he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia can't effectively marry a Jewish woman is totally ignored, because it is against an explicit gemara (Yevamos 47b) that states that even if a Jew converts to another religion and marries a Jewish woman the marriage does in fact take effect. We can't apply the concept of eilu v'eilu to this view; it is simply incorrect. Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v'eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v'eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does notmean that it has ramifications halacha l'ma'aseh. There are rules and regulations regarding psak halacha; this discipline is not hefker (is not a free for all.) The parsha tells us that the halachic positions of the Beis Din Hagadol are binding on all Jews. The Sanhedrin was a group of Torah scholars who were clearly head and shoulders above all of their contemporaries. They were the gedolei hador (the Torah giants of their generation), and the gedolei hador have the status of rabo muvhak for their entire generation, even for those who never even met them (see Tosafos on Berachos 31b and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 244:10.) The halachic positions of one's rebbe muvhak are binding on him, and the halachic views of the gedolei hador (who are clearly head and shoulders above the other Torah scholars of their generation) may not be ignored. None of the members of the aforementioned "beis din" are recognized by anyone as belonging to the category of gedolei hador, and even if it had been a case where we would apply eilu v'eilu, since the gedolei hador have unanimously rejected it for generations, no one today who is not in the category of gedolei hador has the right to go against this rejection! Rabbinic leaders throughout the generations are always concerned with the plight of agunos, but coming up with non-halachic solutions is not the Orthodox way. The Talmud Yerushalmi seems to hold that the concept of pikuach nefesh doesn't only apply when one's life is in danger, but also if one's life will be made extremely miserable this too falls under the category of pikuach nefesh, which allows one to violate Torah laws. The Yerushalmi (quoted by Rav Yosef Engle in Teshuvas Aguna) says that we would have allowed every agunah to violate the prohibition of adultery if not for the fact that we are dealing with gilui arayos (forbidden marriages) where the halacha does not permit one to violate the mitzvah even in a case of literal pikuach nefesh -- even to save one's life. The aforementioned "beis din" is doing a disservice to the Orthodox Jewish community at large, and specifically to these poor agunos, by misleading them with absolutely scandalously fallacious piskei halacha. Let the public beware! One must be of the caliber of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski in his generation or Rav Moshe Feinstein in the past generation in order to determine in a given case if the halacha permits a woman to get remarried without a get. POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the aforementioned "beis din", also see important letter from Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz regarding the "International Beit Din" . Copyright (c) 2017 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 09:42:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Poem For Elul Message-ID: <20170827164248.GA14698@aishdas.org> Saw on Facebook and wanted to share. I am not sure if R Bin Goldman intended the title to be "a poem for elul" (sic) and the first line read (in Hebrew, my transliteration) "Lekha Amar Libi" or if he wrote a poem titled "Lekha Amar Libi, which he introduced as a poem for Elul. I am presenting it as if the latter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Lekha Amar Libi [R'] Bin Goldman My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:18:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach Message-ID: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)? If not, where is its force grounded? Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own law as long as it doesn?t contradict the seven? Who would be eligible to be on a Bnai Noach court and how much interpretive independence would they have? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:19:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Moshe and aharon Message-ID: <846178C1-4E50-4DC0-9C2B-7D9B22F0E745@sibson.com> Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b ) two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to debate] Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse Kt Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 18:53:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:10 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... Message-ID: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin presented in an earlier message. The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product. Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting - please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when? Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera, see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its - Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues] R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. Would you please explain how and/or why? = = = = = = Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are 3 issues that require clarification: 1. Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protests? Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: 1. Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. 2. Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:34:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8326ab8f-6f6d-4868-0fd3-9a28f508abd0@sero.name> On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. > Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the important) distinction. I don't know how similar they look on the surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with different names even in English. > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Once again, I object. Who says so? > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be > performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to > the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 07:20:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828142031.GA10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin : presented in an earlier message. : The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis. As in: : R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the : application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. : Would you please explain how and/or why? This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an observer. See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur, not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half of the label on the "almond milk". But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat? Tangent: : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk... WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats and the milk were cooked together. As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar. After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to wait to eat. The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's. (My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?) Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs. But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked them together? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:06:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (MorrisIsaacson via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog Message-ID: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) Thank you, Moshe Isaacson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:20:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the : sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk : that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that : milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us : that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would : have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would : have been protected from those other ingredients... This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out something else... According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is that of kosher species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of the milking. Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched by a Yisrael. Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly, neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy more than chazal's taqanah. For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's ruling exempting powdered milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent > adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still > applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched > by a Yisrael. > > Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 10:52:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa : lechumra. Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines right above your comment. (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about without the gezeira. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:52:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828155218.GC10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote: : Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated : with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't resplond when you asked on another forum.) Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid. The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and Tzefaniah 2:14. But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol to it. The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll", because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French. Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would share that metaphor. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. > > : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash > : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa > : lechumra. > Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal > visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing > "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. > So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines > right above your comment. He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah. And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5fe6203e-5ca3-2df7-9dc4-ab23193ca9e8@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF > held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus > inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping kashrus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:18:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:18:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have : done. I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:50:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7a7271fd-d51c-6efc-2eb8-8d88dc02bf52@sero.name> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose > : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need > : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have > : done. > > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further supervision is needed. I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care about reshus. What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his employees or guests. The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours from the bottle into his cup. And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. So what makes it CY? This can be further split into two scenarios: (1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision. It was CY lim'hadrin from the moment of milking until this nochri bought it. But now it isn't. (2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at one point it was already in reshus yisroel. In other words, there was more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from the bottle. Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus nochri? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 15:07:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? In-Reply-To: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> References: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170828220709.GH31841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the : bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') : is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, : an eclipse is not included in this list... The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of an eclipse is for others, not Jews. BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah? Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said? I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im (mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see Creation in it but can't. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 13:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828202847.GG31841@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature : calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow : and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as : Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. ... : But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar : and non-Tzon, this non-animal? : Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence : my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You went over my head. I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73. So what are you asking? ... : Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, : the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even : if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur : will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and CAN be chal on it. As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type fatty deposits? Where this question is coming from: My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of a chayah is permissible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 17:25:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:25:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances Message-ID: Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis. He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined by the names we use to identify things. But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as far as I can tell, has not been addressed. Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the facts of the Halacha. I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by. We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino, is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste? Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop - stop trying to force the round peg. I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined. = = = = = Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked with milk from the Pesikta he quotes. Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, it must still be Halachically coherent. Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats. - - - - - Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained why there is no MA to cook these with dairy. He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different names even in English. Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are. Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi. Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim, take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is explaining. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:10:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:10:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? Message-ID: The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The answer is Yes and also No There is an Issur to eat Neveila but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat - RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2 Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah. Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by the Gemara, Chullin 58a. A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar, a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo. After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before being incubated] from unfertilised eggs. Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif]. Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it. What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision must be made, which is ZVZGo. BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa. Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher chickens when they hatch. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 16:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh Message-ID: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds." Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 19:54:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which conclusions may be drawn. > Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when > HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until > they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection > and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was permitted to them. But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 05:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it (and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead) However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers. They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish. Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container with CS. How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)? (they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 08:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ab46d6f-e25f-3389-5dea-28aabefa26c1@sero.name> On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they > are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were > growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the > eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] Then why not say the same of the hen's meat? It too was mostly grown before it became a tereifah! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 12:52:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh In-Reply-To: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> References: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170829195223.GA27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, : assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? : Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as : Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in : Hebrew. TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error tragic; I wonder if it's common. I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers: Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds... until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud. Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad. The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados". The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 13:32:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170829203231.GB27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold : that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the : status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan : according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their : keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the : absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all : kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his : descendants! Not to mention all benei Racheil. Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before we were true Benei Yisrael. Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a "nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah. Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other. Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as an issur chamur. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 30 12:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:48:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments Message-ID: A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933: As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . (Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues) We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address. It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure way of life that would bring us to God's light. The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps. Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split. A couple of notes: 1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause. 2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other personal sin), he had this in mind. 3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely within the Clal doing the sin. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 06:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 07:44:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it > sounds like "original sin." YL And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:35:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170831233516.GB22179@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me :> it sounds like "original sin." YL : : Did you think only Xians beleived : in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our : view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the : guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"... The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach. Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos, all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin. Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 12:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America Message-ID: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus see there for more background: On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land... On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein... REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US. Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6: Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them, they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness, not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished, as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia. Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain, without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with our very eyes ... This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel] was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150 years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather, that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times. (Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America being a "medinah shel chessed.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:43:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have several comments. The OU writes: > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > the home for Shabbos. Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs of the home." In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting the lights is part of that! The OU continues: > The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. > Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to > sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama), > women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to > me it sounds like "original sin." I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I think that's all the Tur is saying. It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive from the same event. Finally, the OU writes: > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > the wicks will easily catch fire. It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be *more* difficult to light later on. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 18:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:57:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh Message-ID: NEVEILAH Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the prohibition to eat Neveilah It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2 However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah. I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by Halacha so why is it Assur to eat it? MARIS AYIN The following are universally accepted 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha and even Minhag 2] AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta] 3] AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA? I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal. and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats, even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA. The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah - Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not. Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has no direct Halachic component to it Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a reflection of Halacha. Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden. Please provide some sources. As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is also predicated upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim. As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish? ISSUR BBCh I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor - only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook. The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out - the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:06:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:06:02 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a little bit will do] That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However, for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen. The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:00:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb'al peh Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression > that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may > disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no > one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within > the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from > Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions > made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that > seem problematic to our minds." > > Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, > assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not > so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies > as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent > in Hebrew. I could respond in any of several ways. Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial. I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash, until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that Nach is also included.) Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural sources, and with hardly any logical arguments. Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin: What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his stereotypes about mishnayos.) This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion, and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our practice is XYZ. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 22:23:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? Ben On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system > of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to > see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or > murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow > one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and > speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 06:49:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org>, <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. Kvct Joel rich > On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? > > Ben > >> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system >> of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to >> see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or >> murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow >> one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and >> speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkampgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:45:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based ideology. But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses. I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate, interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need. So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:58:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ > Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas > haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's > because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something. Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive, and they recognized this. The implications for today are self-evident. As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the Zionists actively fought against religious practice. -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:11:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote: : That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I : don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:19:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:19:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict so many murderers. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:27:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901152729.GI31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so : that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power : and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, : false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why : we continue to remember Amalek. R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8) RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can can pass as soon as we stop being a threat. Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as chinam. So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah. This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on what they did, and not let it Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't, why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred we feel once we realize they hate us back. The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how to address sin'as chinam. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:27:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only > superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any > other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't > mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it > became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly > damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:08:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:08:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias" and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell "Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote: : As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign : names? As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations. The use of : aleph and ayin always makes things interesting. The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE 126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them. It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.) My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud. There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef; patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud. On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued: :> The very point I was trying to make is that yes, : I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an : English word into Hebrew. : If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1 : spelling. Especially for more complicated names. As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)... There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others. I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself. The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide English sounds among the established transliterations. "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the "j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and an English "ch". The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or "Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's where I could see debate. Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only said by some who know her? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:59:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4318c19f-0790-10f1-6bab-106d72e8dd9b@sero.name> On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/ thing for the "j". The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi teshuvot discuss it. IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it was spelt gimel yud. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:34:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:34:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The role of gematria, and remez in general In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <488600f7-ef1c-3adb-b551-f3c00f739ff9@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170901163421.GC28962@aishdas.org> >From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria itself reached Avodah topicality. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim: > True. But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li > pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see > how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that. > R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other > opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not > one of them methods used to darshan Torah. And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:" : Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves : use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah... What is the role of Remez? We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh -- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.) Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat in the pasuq. And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod". But remez? What's it for? It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f004425-548e-142a-90de-48c5e91769b8@sero.name> On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. [Email #2] On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:24:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901172407.GB14196@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means : they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which would either mean: 1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency. Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't try to fix what you can? 2- They felt they were insufficient in skill. Or a third or fourth possibility. I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death. Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment. And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9, the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death. He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then. R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin" which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time getting permission to execute someone than they did. But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi wrong. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:52:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote: > > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > > the home for Shabbos. > >Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. >The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was >"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a >level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why >this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, >because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs >of the home." > >In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting >the lights is part of that! Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) >Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be >in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do >something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I >think that's all the Tur is saying. You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness, >Finally, the OU writes: > > > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > > the wicks will easily catch fire. > >It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully >understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain >piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and >difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a >charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. >In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be >counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be >*more* difficult to light later on. Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:32:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:32:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412cee4b-73a8-f3ae-bd8f-d8051cb68646@sero.name> On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually > oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:03:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, from Jewish breakaway groups). Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). Another (lesser known one): the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha. (IIRC, the S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.) My question is this: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and something comparable in secular life. Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from some other group/idealogy? (E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of it's Nazi association. But I'm looking for a better and more relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't a common design anyway)). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:07:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we : are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some : sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and : something comparable in secular life. Something so direct, it's not even an analogy. Jewish: Yichud. Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the opposite gender. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:17:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> >The following are universally accepted >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all >Halacha and even Minhag Is this the case? According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm , the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos). He also mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613. (As they each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) ) So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? (In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or so. So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did the general opinion change? Or did it?) -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 02:39:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:39:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath Message-ID: Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel during their Shabbath? Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, text (SMS) or WhatsApp? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 12:09:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality.? So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 03:38:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 06:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . I wrote: > In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then > lighting the lights is part of that! and R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of > homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? > ... > Given that roles today are much different than they were in > the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles > should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I > am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive. I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For example, if non-family are present, some might consider this non-tzniyus. But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other. > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which > are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights > with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is > no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem > with Shabbos neiros? As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that does not apply to Chanukah. My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 04:08:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: . R' Sholom Simon asked: > Can anybody think of a secular (ideally, American) law or > common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish > ourselves from some other group/idealogy? R' Micha Berger's response of yichud is a great example of where secular society has grasped the importance of gezeros which help protect us from ourselves. Similarly, secular society understands the concept of Mar'is Ayin and Chashad, and they express this in the term "Appearance of impropriety". (There's even a short Wikipedia page with that title.) But I don't think either of these is what RSS was asking for. He wants examples where the purpose is specifically: > in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, > from Jewish breakaway groups). > > Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos > (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). The answer that first came to my mind is that the original American colonists adopted various practices to distinguish themselves from their European origins. I'm sure there were others, but the main one that comes to my mind is the spelling differences between British and American English. For example, the Wikipedia article "Comparison of American and British English" says: "One particular contribution towards formalizing these differences came from Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionary (published 1828) with the intention of showing that people in the United States spoke a different dialect from Britain, much like a regional accent." Akiva Miller PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, where we are uneqivocally supposed to do it one way, but the other way is grudgingly acceptable after the fact. (Speeding limits are *not* a good example of this. The policeman will probably not stop you for going slightly over the limit, but he certainly could. That would be a Chetzi Shiur at most - a clear violation, even if not a punishable one.) If anyone has good examples, please start a new thread. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 06:07 PM 9/1/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >Jewish: Yichud. >Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy >about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the >opposite gender. Thanks -- but I'm looking more for something that is intended to separate us (us "regular Americans" -- whatever that is) from a people or nation or ideology that we find distasteful. An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). I'm looking for a law or practice that *separates/distinguishes" (havdil) - your example is more like a "fence." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest example I can think of is not secular. Mennonite (including Amish) men shave their moustaches to express their rejection of all things military, because when their customs were formed soldiers wore moustaches. > PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that > is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, There's the principle "de mimimis non curat lex", but that's more like chatzi shiur, which civil law considers mutar lechatchila. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:15:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <657b8edc-97f8-5fa2-45c9-7efe94200b60@sero.name> On 02/09/17 05:39, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel > during their Shabbath? > > Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, > text (SMS) or WhatsApp? If you know they won't break shabbos to read it, or at least you don't know they will break shabbos to read it, then I don't see a problem. "Ee ata metzuveh al shevisas keilim". It's not shabbos for you; it is shabbos for the remote instrument that you are manipulating, but that is not a problem. The same would apply to operating a waldo that's in a place where it's shabbos; it's shevisas keilim, which BH says is not a thing. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:28:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: <12a7adb9-e48c-7af7-3fb2-7ee96c2a3799@sero.name> On 02/09/17 15:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue > here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a > reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and > Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but > it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand > that we live in this reality. But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:51:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:51:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (1:4) writes: "When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel ... They would come to the Beis Din at the entrance to the Azara. If they knew [the din] they would tell them, if not everyone went into the Beis Din and asked. ... If the matter was not clear to the Beis Din they would discuss the issue until all agreed or they they would take a vote and follow the majority and tell the petitioners this is the halacha" The Rambam is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 88 which states the following: "At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Beis Din Hagadol. The Beis Din Hagadol was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah). If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide. After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai)." There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the Tannaim, the Gemara in fact related that they left their place in the Lishkas ha'Gazis 40 years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. If so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol in existence? 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:23:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: , <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: From: Sholom Simon Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:17 PM > The following are universally accepted > 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha > and even Minhag > Is this the case? ... > So... what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone > accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? As in many things, the Rambam seems not to have been noticed. This is distressing, because the Rambam tries to present things according to halokho, not according to medrash. As he says in his introduction to the Tenth Pereq of Sanhedrin in Perush haMishnayot, medrash is almost never to be taken literally, but rather comes to teach us things (but says that most Jews don't understand that). For halakhic purposes, the Rambam explains in Hil. M'lakhim 9:1, that Adam haRishon observed 6 things that he was commanded. One was added after the Mabbul, so yielding 7 mitzvos that Noah and his descendents were commanded to observe. Avraham Avinu was also commanded concerning Milah, and he took upon himself the obligation to daven Shacharit. Yitzchak added another two, and Ya'aqov another two. When rabbis say that Avraham observed all 613 Mitvot, it is obviously not meant literally: many, many of the 613 only came into force after King Shlomo built the BhM. Before that, there were a whole set of other mitzvot (such as that the Kohanim and only the Kohanim wereto take apart and assemble the Mishkan, and that the L'viyim and only the L'viyim were to carry the parts of the Mishkan). These were commandments from HQBH, but not part of the set of 613. When the BhM was built, those mitzvot disappeared and new mitzvot, which are part of the 613 count, came into effect. So before that no one "observed" the 613. And some of the 613 are only applicable to Kohanim, and some only to L'viyim, and some only to Yisra'elim, so there was no person ever who observed or could observe all 613 mitzvot. So when we say nowadays that Jews are commanded to observe 613 mitzvot it does not mean that any person is commanded to observe all 613; it means that there exist 613 mitzvot. Every Jew is commanded to learn all 613, however. So it is possible that the Avot learned all 613. But most of them were not technically mitzvot then, because they were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and before that no one was commanded to do them. So what does the Torah mean when it says that Avraham observed "mishmarti, mitzvotai,chuqqotai v'torotai" (sic, not "toratei) in Chapter 26? The same thing that it means in 18:19 "for I know him, that he will command his children and his house after him to obeserve the way of the Lord." There is no question that Avraham Avinu was ALSO commanded to observe what Chazal include in the term "Derekh Eretz" and the Rambam explicates in Hil. De'ot Pereq 6, which included such basic things as proper behavior and middot (and one of the main goals of the Aishdas organization, and nowadays is called "mussar"). Chazal say that all of those things have to come before Torah, i.e. before learning rest of the Torah. And, as Micha the founder of Aishdas can tell you better than anyone, there are so many, many things that one has to learn and focus on to observe these most basic of the commandments. So Avraham would have had his hands full teaching people those. Did he also learn all the mitzvot that would be given later? He was a novi, and so perhaps could, but one cannot say that he "observed" them in the literal sense, because how could one "observe" a law that had not yet been instituted and was not even applicable? Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 17:39:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when : American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. : (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their national ethnicity. I think this topic has become non-PC. Nationalism is even a dirty word in some circles; viewed as faschism, or fascism-lite. You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without running afoul of rules about discussing politics? But I hope that at least relating the two topics will provide something to think about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 10:58:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel > and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the > Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din > Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority and passed their 18 gezeros. The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the period of the zugos. Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 12:44:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:44:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > >> 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel >> and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the >> Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din >> Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. >> > > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority > and passed their 18 gezeros. That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. > The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. > Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the > period of the zugos. Yes that is exactly the question. Why didn't they resolve all of the Machlokes in the Mishnayos. > Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the > other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. Wouldn't that violate the issur of lo tasuguru mipnei ish? > > > -- > Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, > zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 18:14:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7333f45e-37cb-8ad0-ca8f-bffbb68048f8@gmail.com> Sun, 3 Sep 2017 Marty Bluke asked: > ...The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the > Tannaim... > so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence > there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students > had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol > in existence? > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and > Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? > Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for > most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. By '''in existence,'' the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The English-language Jewish history books that have been published over the past few decades follow this model. I have also done so in ''The Dynamics of Dispute,'' (Judaica Press) Chapter 10, ''The Control and Proliferation of Machlokess, Keeping the Torah One.'' Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 01:59:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:59:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:01:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> On 05/09/17 04:59, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both > David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never > attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females must be killed as well. Your question of how Agag's descendants, conceived the night before he was killed, managed to become so numerous so quickly applies here too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:17:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? Message-ID: According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. However, others disagree. Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/yblaj8cu If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:49:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:49:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it > into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? > Greek changed a lot over the centuries. I'm not sure if it even existed as a language at the time of Joshua, and the Greek alphabet was certainly much later. If Greek was the one of the languages the Torah was translated into then it would probably have been unrecognizable in the Hellenistic period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 09:17:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> On 05/09/17 11:17, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate > it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? 1. Ptolemy, not Alexander. 2. 72 sages, not 70. 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) exist today? 4. Even if the writing did still exist, would whatever passed for Greek in 1271 BCE have been intelligible in 271 BCE? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:36:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:36:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/5/2017 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. > However, others disagree. ... > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 > languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages > to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek > translation? Well, for one thing, it was Ptolemy, rather than Alexander. But for another, maybe it wasn't necessary. Perhaps if they'd simply asked for the authoritative Greek translation, they'd have gotten it, and any number of distortions of the Torah caused by the Septuagint wouldn't have happened. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:20:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> References: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170905182040.GB2253@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:17:10PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the : writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure : to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) : exist today? Rishonim on Yehoshua also argue how many such monuments there were. For example Rashi (at least as explained in Gur Aryeih) has three copies: one in the Yaedrin, one on the mizbeiach on Har Eivel (which is named in Devarim) and one at Gilgal. AND there is a machloqes tanna'im (Sotah 35b) about how they were written. But I think both shitos hold they were engraced. R' Shimon says that the stones were plastered, and then the words were engraved into the plaster. R' Yehudah held the stones were engraved, and then plastered on top of them. R' Yehudah's position sounds like it's describing more permanent writing, but how would you get to see it? You would not only need to peel off the plaster, the plaster could well get into the engraved letters. To address the original question: Ezra haSofer used majority to produce the mesoretic text, leaving us with a sefer that didn't match any of the copies found. Why didn't he check the Hebrew copy/ies from the monunemnt(s)? Wouldn't a text engraved by people who met MRAH be more authoritative than any of them? (All this assuming, as is the post I'm replying to, that they contained the whole Torah. That is the shitah we're trying to understand, no?) So it would seem to me that just as we have no idea how to find this monument / these monuments, even if the writing is still legible, they were already unavailable in Ezra's day. Unsurprising, given how much more pragmatic and used knowledge was lost. And even if they did know where to find it, either the writing wore off the plaster, or perhaps the plaster was too embedded after all those centuries to be picked off to read the stone. Regardless of the shift in Greek, the stones weren't even usable when the target was the original Hebrew. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170905184626.GC2253@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:17:58PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >The following are universally accepted : >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all : >Halacha and even Minhag : : Is this the case? In a footnote to one of his father-in-law's maamarim, RMMS (the LR), writes that this is meant that they did so "beruchnius, velo begashmius": Some mitzvos they "only" fulfilled the point of the mitzvah without physically doing the mitzvah. E.g. tefillin, with its mention of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. Others, they did perform the mitzvah physically, but still they only did so to accomplish the ruchnius -- it was only incidentally physical, and only sometimes in the same form. See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31608&st=&pgnum=137 For example (not given there), the Zohar links Yaaqov's spotted sticks and changing the coats of sheep to the mitzvah of tefillin. But the sticks didn't become qadosh, because uplifting and redeeming the gashmi wasn't part of the plan. There is more in Liqutei Sichos on Lekh Lekha www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/68627/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Lech-Lecha.htm Given RMMS's relationship to shitas Rashi, and our stereotype that chassidus tends to take maximalist positions, I thought this position would be somewhat interesting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 13:30:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:30:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> Message-ID: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females > must be killed as well. How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what the mitzvah and the dinim were? Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently no one informed him. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 20:43:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 05/09/17 16:30, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females >> must be killed as well. > > How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what > the mitzvah and the dinim were? They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 07:45:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:43:20PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe : taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of : "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in : front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never : knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so : angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. BB 21b. I think he concluded said rebbe (Yoav) did it as intentional ziyuf, not an error. R Mordechai Breuer concludes that the semichut (i.e. the "X of Y" form of the word for X) for "zakhar" could follow a variant conjugation and come out "zekher". And while it's hard to picture confusing "z'khar" and "zeikher", "zekher" and "zeikher" is much easier. The "zekher" vs "zeikher" debate over what the Gra had for Parashas Zakhor was over which means the Gra's intent was to tell us the word means "reminder / memorial" rather than "memory". The mesorah is "zeikher". But if zekher could mean both "males of" and "memory of", the mistake is VERY easy. (Not that RMB would worry about the possibility of the Gra disagreeing with the mesoretic niqud.) But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? It's strange. In our culture, it would be the "hot topic" of study for the weeks leading into the war... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 11:48:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > error. No. Why would he do that? The Rishonim discuss whether the rebbe himself didn't know the correct pronunciation, or whether he knew it and therefore taught it corrrectly, but didn't pay enough attention to how each boy was pronouncing it, so never noticed that young Yoav had misheard him and was reading "z'char". > But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 15:51:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an : >error. : No. Why would he do that? A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't get clarification /before/ the war? And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most of the animals? Actually, if you figure the remaining animals were for qorbanos, he was planning on all them being killed. A random reenactment of Yericho? Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 19:12:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> On 06/09/17 18:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > : >error. > > : No. Why would he do that? > > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. I don't understand why you keep bringing David up. What does he have to do with this story? The story is about Yoav, not David. And I repeat my question, why would Yoav's rebbe intentionally corrupt the pasuk? Why would Yoav even suspect him of it? > :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? > > : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. So how does that make Yoav a gadol? > And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? Why would it even occur to him that Yoav had such a misunderstanding? > And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most > of the animals? Do you mean Shaul? Perhaps Yoav didn't know the details of what had happened all those years ago. In fact how many people ever knew about Shmuel's rebuke of Shaul? It may have been secret by the king's order, and not spoken about, so Yoav may never even have heard of it. > Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when > it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Again, Yoav thought he had it right. He didn't even know that there was anything he needed to ask. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 00:02:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi@opengemara.org via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3FF2B345-8199-48FC-A3BD-6A89FC2540F9@opengemara.org> On September 6, 2017 3:51pm PDT, Micha Berger wrote: ... > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. .. >: Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? The Gemara (Bava Basra 21b) says that the issue was "???? ???? ????? ?' ???? [arur oseh melekhes H' remiyah -mb]" -- that the teacher should be more attentive (also, it fits into the Sugya there -- that a teacher who is medayek is better than one who's fast). Also, there's a machlokes in Sanhedrin if Yoav was a good person who made mistakes or if he was evil but found Dovid Hamelech to strong. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 09:45:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:45:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: R' Martin Bluke asked: > 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says > hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash > states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night > and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. > > However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought > Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if > Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David > and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to > wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out Amalek. First the data: * The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters. * The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh * As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's Pelishti stronghold. * Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a problem. So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul. Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans, but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert. So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them, because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites, Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself. Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command. Ad kaan. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 11:15:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Practices of the Tochacha" Message-ID: Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well written and very interesting. http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 12:54:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170907195348.KNNX30763.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: >: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when >: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. >: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). > >Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have >recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken >to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their >national ethnicity. . . . > >You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without >running afoul of rules about discussing politics? Perhaps. Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable with respect to Americans and the American Revolution! Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 14:24:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170907212448.GC15354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? : http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation: All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 15:38:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170907223856.GD15354@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" : d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its : mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? : : Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, : but we don't hold like him. Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4. It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20. ... : We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from : Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus : seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's : significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, : suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later (you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted the gezeira. Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely. : So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev, not so much. I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo" was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo" rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get that conclusion from "sevasheil". And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim lemiqra. But it crashed down. Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 23:55:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> Message-ID: Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks with him the rest of life. Ben On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there > was anything he needed to ask. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 11:55:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 13:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:06:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote: : I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw : it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather : than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," : just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. R Mordechai Breuer On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote: : How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him : what the mitzvah and the dinim were? : Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous : mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know : that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently : no one informed him. And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav was strongly deferential to David. Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the questions as to why. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 14:02:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything > about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a > unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav > was strongly deferential to David. I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. Suppose you're a caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which includes liver. You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, and I agree. You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 9 19:13:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur Message-ID: RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh [but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein Issur Chal Al Issur. So how is it that RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 03:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: > By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' > Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources > that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol > could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and > Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam says? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:18:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to function normally. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:43:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:43:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the > time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to > function normally. And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way. The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin was not functioning normally. [Email #2. -micha] One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 07:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91da4a07-6dcd-bc04-b9e0-38326532931d@sero.name> On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod to both sides. (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 10:02:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : While there may have : been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, : why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam : says? Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin, when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin. (Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.) So, what happened? My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed resolution by higher courts. IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 15:32:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45eac523-5fc8-1a2c-0c9a-256d54c2e054@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700), when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704, while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate, and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards. There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows Beis Hillel. Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become the standard one. All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 20:42:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> Message-ID: <6c5042b2-7703-92b5-e001-b2e5bc111010@zahav.net.il> In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these issues when instructing the soldiers? Ben On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 01:20:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the > one on smicha What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. [Email #2] On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different > conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed > resolution by higher courts. > > IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. > > To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of > valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 06:23:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha" > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. No, they weren't. BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they started in the very last years before it, when things were far from normal functioning. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170911151131.GF24527@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? : Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis : Sheini. But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis. I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a "veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule. The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer. Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq, for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al devarav, for even these greats weren't. So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the best answer to your question. And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to the late amoraim? Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why (leshitas haRambam) the question was still around? : On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. :> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of :> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? : The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white : approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim : "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything : in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying : that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini. (Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's just projecting.) There is a difference between 1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah saying it means the last two are in reversed order; and 2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this idea would be kosher. The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin. And yet, multiple norms would co-exist. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the destruction of Bayit Sheni. Lisa On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis > Sheini. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 07:13:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories Message-ID: <20170911141302.GB24527@aishdas.org> Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav in a different direction. I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the "q" in "Amaleiq".) : I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported : wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher : Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where : we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history. : Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint : in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious : revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of : anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where : the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in : order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal : add a story that isn't needed. : Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or : pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some : of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising, : but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read : historically, I wonder. I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.) Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened" the criteria for such categorization? If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories that defy how the world works. (And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who accept miracles.) In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures. Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid. IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh and av deis din derelict in his duty? The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because they're only ahistoric. I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from within the midrashic-story system. So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..." While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise" far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:54:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty. Rabbi Akiva lived at the > time of the Bar Kochva revolt. R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later. The > vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the > destruction of Bayit Sheni. While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 17:20:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, > Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was > Nasi in Yavneh)" And how many of those feature in any machlokos? Hillel & Shammai had only three, beside the long-running one on smicha. > These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel & Shammai do. Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to dispute? > Hillel and Shammai were certainly > well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their > students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo ra'u". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 18:19:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:19:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 07:02:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? Message-ID: <1505224922640.65779@stevens.edu> Please see the video at http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb produced by the Harabonim of Queens YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 20:16:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:16:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? In-Reply-To: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe > the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were > gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". > Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of > machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the > teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the > lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on! As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one). Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF. * HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim, 1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130 concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora. (All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 08:49:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? Message-ID: <1505317742192.42683@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40) writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until thirteen and a half minutes after sunset. The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 11:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (hankman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:11:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Message-ID: R. Zvi Lampel wrote: ?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help?? CM responds: Yup, I imagine that would be the concordance in his head! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 06:28:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= Message-ID: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 08:54:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:54:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170914155423.GD26813@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av : even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but... Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 09:44:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach In-Reply-To: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> References: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170914164428.GA4289@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is : applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, : might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?.. I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981) count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei. So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod. While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such "tolados". : Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own : law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven? I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of authority is granted. There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of a Noachide court under dinim: The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society. This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10) and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid (Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim 10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim" includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law needs to look like. But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the other 6. This is shitas haRambam (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land. See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 11:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> Message-ID: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min : ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger : (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin was a meat thing in particular. But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the brain. (* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're the consensus, by sheer number.) If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration. It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort to obtain the treif milk. R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:00:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> References: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4636649d-ed8e-bc04-6e80-c299a962507c@sero.name> On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash > et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case > to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. > Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held > like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" > understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, > not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the > brain. You have the PC and CS reversed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1505420943267.43919@stevens.edu> Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170914201537.GB11862@aishdas.org> First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to R Akiva Miller's second post first. On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote: : As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that : takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real : halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the : lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, : but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that : does not apply to Chanukah. I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT) is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function of neis Shabbos. IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation" as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her feel less that she is shouldering the list alone. Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote: : Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. : The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was : "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a : level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why : this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, : because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs : of the home." Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..." But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah kavsah neiro shel olam connection.) The MB too... So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU cites, "only" the nesei keilim. : In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting : the lights is part of that! Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where women can consistently be homemakers..." The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way. BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't know what to make of that. Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular social state? This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book "Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law" https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing, and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes. One paragraph: Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways. The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point: according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations in a range of mitzvot! Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't know): Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal family unit. RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the thesis: Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical, and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single sex. He did not do so. ... Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family, we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids. So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed social structure. RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers, among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular kinds of social structure over others. ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with a husband and wife at the core. ... Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for, community units that comprise family units which comprise individual units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis. A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is so much to say about it. Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield: Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are -- and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 14:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170914210406.GB10180@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote: : There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): : 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the : Tannaim... According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im. According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion) it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over a dechuyah rule). So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and both talmuds. : 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and : Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? To sum up: 1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah. : Why did they let Machlokes fester? ... 2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted, or cannot be taken at face value. a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from the lishkas hagazis. Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post: b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should. And I suggested: c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that distinguishes between them. And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote: : > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won : > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority : > and passed their 18 gezeros. : That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed : group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It : sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either mean - number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5) - number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT sham) So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that would explain why they too got counted. But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 09:28:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:28:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> >From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss : Question: If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition. Answer: He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like an average person, and certainly not Maaser. If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur cholim, miqvah, shuls... I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of the rest of the community. Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. (I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to help, I would appreciate it.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 11:15:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? --------------------- From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 12:22:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170915192219.GD11421@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - : cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools (and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave them some guidelines for defining what that is. But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the complexity of their definition. And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/ poseiq would tell you to compute your share? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 17 07:08:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is the Customer Always Right? Message-ID: <95.E3.03036.1028EB95@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 15:19:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:19:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha > B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to > have a minyan? I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, as compared to wwithout a minyan. I thought that we say it Motzaei Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few days are left and we fear running out of time. Both reasons are even more relevant on Motzaei Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 21:39:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a25b83f-173e-6448-5511-011515a4e304@sero.name> On 18/09/17 18:19, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, > as compared to wwithout a minyan. Without a minyan one can't say the kaddish. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 01:56:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tuitiion Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: RMB wrote: > Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: > Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, > is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW > described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the > differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other > urgent causes? > I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one > may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if > promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are > currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: It is meritorious to support Torah scholars, and you may dedicate a portion of your [maaser kesafim] funds even to support one's own son studying Torah. You may likewise use a portion of these funds to pay for the your adult children's yeshiva gedola, midrasha and college tuition, but you should not draw on these funds for paying tuition while in elementary or high school. [1] However, someone lives a modest lifestyle and still cannot otherwise make ends meet, may draw on these funds even to pay for a portion of his minor children's Jewish day school tuition. [2] Someone who benefits from a scholarship at an institution of Jewish education should prioritize that institution when giving charity, over other institutions. [3] 1: Chatam Sofer YD 249 2: Igrot Moshe YD2 ?113, but Aruch haShulchan YD 249:7 disagrees 3: Oral ruling by Rav Hershel Schachter It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka. I once sent my kids to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we are discussing, since it is a poor community). -- Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 11:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral Message-ID: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> An Aish article notes: >The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >within them. There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first appear in Jewish thought?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 13:33:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom Message-ID: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> The most commonly cited reason that we say "oseh hashalom" rather than "oseh shalom" in kaddish during the 10 days, is that the gematria of hashalom is equivalent to the gematria of Safriel, the malach that "writes" us into the Book. (I just recently read somewhere else: "Hagahos Mordechai [Miseches Rosh Hashanah 720 he states as follows: Safiriel is the Gematria of Oseh and Oseh is the Gematria of Hashalom. Alternatively this hints to the kindness of Hashem that swerves the judgment to merit in a case that the sins and merits are equal, and the verse states "Maaseh Hatzedaka Shalom"." (I don't understand this second reason: the "sholom" in that last phrase doesn't have a "hey") I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their other reasons I am missing?) KvCT! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their > other reasons I am missing?) Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter counts. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:40:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <6d0c6039-0428-0174-88ec-0724ad47e1a5@sero.name> On 19/09/17 14:48, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >> forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >> Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >> imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >> within them. I assume this is in the context of a discussion of the way people in ancient times used to see time as cyclical rather than as progressing, as we moderns see it. > I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. > > Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first > appear in Jewish thought?) The idea that specific days have fixed properties that repeat every time they come around is found everywhere in Chazal. They took it completely for granted, and of course it fits into the cyclical way the ancients saw all of time. But it's clear from the Torah that they *didn't* see time as cyclical. So the author of this article uses the spiral to explain how they did see it. But it's impossible to discuss this entire subject without the insight that there are different ways to see time, and without the two models -- cyclical and progressive -- to contrast, and to propose syntheses as this author does. Chazal did not have the historical perspective to be aware of this whole dichotomy. I suspect they were unaware that the nochrim of their era didn't see time as they did, and that the nochrim were just as unaware that Jews didn't see time as *they* did. Only looking back from 2000 years later is this difference apparent, and we can discuss how the Torah's progressive view of history can be reconciled with dates repeating themselves, by using the spiral analogy. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 08:45:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170925154550.GC23052@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important : >as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, : >are their other reasons I am missing?) : Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the : first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter : counts. At least both the Chassidei Ashkenaz and the Tur held it was. There is no evidence of this line of thought any closer to the actual start of Nusach Ashkenaz. And a number of the Tur's word counts are dependent on flavor of Nusach Ashkenaz. Could well be that the significance is itself part of a bigger machloqes. They could also be taken as post-facto kavvanos, a way keep in mind a pasuq that colors what we mean by the baqashah, rather than causitive. It is interesting to me that the violation of word count gematrios in Nusach Ashkenaz is largely among Chassidim, who we culturally associate as the community most likely to deal in such remez. Except perhaps for Chida and Ben Ish Hai influenced Sepharadim, but they didn't have a nusach that made such claims to ask why they would choose to leave it. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 05:38:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:38:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? Message-ID: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, and what HKB"H wants from us: Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot switch its use). GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 09:30:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 25/09/17 08:38, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, > and what HKB?H wants from us: > Rama Y?D 249:13 (my free translation) ? In any event one shouldn?t > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won?t he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz ? so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 10:19:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:19:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: We change "min kol" to "mikol" to make up for the addition of the extra "l'eila".? So that the word count stays the same.? So yes, we see this kind of thing everywhere, including kaddish. Lisa On 9/19/2017 11:33 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria.? Do we see that elsewhere?? (Or, are > their other reasons I am missing?) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- I leave it to the readers to project if people put a name on as a form of bragging (separate question - is it intent or what observer's perceive that counts?) It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the item is not in danger of being switched in use? GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:29:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170925182902.GA16613@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:37PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An Aish article notes: :> The Jewish model of time is a spiral... : There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it : was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. : The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time : (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. : I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. There is no source, but it's a pretty compelling conclusion given Chazal's description of mo'eid, or chayav kol adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo repeating yetzi'as Mitzrayim annually OT1H, and yet OTOH speaking of history as inexorably running from Adam to the messianic era (and beyond). We might be the first generation consciously aware enough of the issue to think about our use of both language that implies circular time and that of linear time to want to make a synthesis "helical time". (True YU alumni would insist there is no helical time. Meaning comes from the tension of the dialectic; there is no syntheis. ) I don't question the value of lomdus, even though it is utilizing patterns in halakhah or halachic dialectic that weren't made explicit. Yes, that creates a change of error, but when the explanation is strong enough, do we reject the whole concept because the Rambam never spoke about gavra vs cheftza on topics other than oaths? Think how much hashkafah, or specifically Qabbalah, is drawn from just this kind of finding a theory to explain existing statements. This helical time is typical. So, is it a modern chiddush? That isn't a boolean question... to the extent you find this intepretation muchrach, it's inherent in what came bafore. And the the extent you don't, v.v. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:58:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>> Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't :>> glorify oneself with the charity he gives... :> Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their :> donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item :> donated... ... : It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the : item is not in danger of being switched in use? I am personally bothered when there is so much text on the paroches or cloth on the bimah (term?) that it detracts from the aesthetics. I am also bothered when more space is spent naming the donors than naming and perhaps lauding the person in whose memory the donation was given. That said... I think the consensus is that things have fallen to the point that we have two offsetting values that outweigh this ill: 1- When the choice is between collecting multiples more money with giving out honors vs operating on a shoestring and having to cut corners by only taking more purely motivated donations, the extra tzedaqah given is a mitzvah that outweights the alternative. 2- Even someone who has pure motives and wants to give quietly is living in a society that will respond positively if his donation is made public and influences the community. Peer pressure isn't just for teenagers. I think it's parallel to choosing chalitzah as a first choice. It's clear from the pasuq and the content of the ritual that chalitzah is something that in the ideal no one should be encouraged to choose. But as Abba Shaul noted, we don't live in that ideal world, and what was second-rate has become (centuries later) mandatory practice. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 12:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170925190253.GE16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, : as compared to without a minyan... We make a point of demonstrating communal unity in the middle. "Shalom Aleikhem!" Not speaking halachically, as you aren't obligated to greet 9 men, or even really greet anyone. But still... Aside from Zev's example of getting one more qaddish, which is a nice but incidental advantage, it seems to me that QL itself leans toward being a tzibur thing. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:34:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Ben On 9/19/2017 12:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I thought that we say it Motzaei > Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few > days are left and we fear running out of time. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:09:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:09:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <761520c3-faea-cd38-8ba8-ee24f675b3b7@sero.name> On 25/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > cloth on the bimah (term?) mappah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 03:39:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <046338f8-991f-2216-c55d-6002821d57a1@sero.name> On 26/09/17 01:34, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of > Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a > shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Not everyone does that, in fact some don't even say it on Shabbat, and wait until Shavuot. So zrizin doesn't necessarily override avelut. Also many don't do kidush levana until after 7 days from the molad, by which time we're into the deeper avelut. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 06:45:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170926134541.GB23180@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:34:30AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the : 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? ... I am confused. Isn't the implication simply that all else being equal, do it earlier because zerizin, but aveilus is sufficient for not considering all else equal? Why does zerizus being applicable mean that it is necessarily the most urgent halachic principle coming into play? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 11:54:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Over on Areivim, we were yet again discussing the cRc's position that one should not buy coffee from a full Starbucks store that sells food. Here's my take, cut-n-pasted from what I posted there. ... There is a lot of ham and bacon at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=hot-breakfast and poultry at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=sandwiches-panini-and-wraps The cRc's statement refers to these in particular . It also questions your assumption of the ubiquitous use of soap: Chicago Rabbinical Council Guide to Starbucks Beverages May 2013 / June 2015 ... As said, Starbucks shops serve many kosher and non-kosher items, with the most serious non-kosher item being hot meat sandwiches. The standard daily clean-up at Starbucks includes a hot wash of all utensils and some parts of that washing are done without soap. This clean up process significantly challenges the kosher status of the otherwise kosher products and each product must be judged by a competent halachic authority. The cRc has made available their detailed review and analysis of this topic in the spring 2011 edition of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and that article can be found below. Click here to read this article. The good news is that there are many Starbucks locations that do not serve hot meat sandwiches. These are generally the Starbucks kiosks which can be defined as a Starbucks location, usually found in a mall, retail store, a bus or train station or airport, that does not sell hot sandwiches. The cRc is comfortable recommending any drink made from kosher ingredients (even though some others use ingredients that may not be kosher). This list is accurate at this time for stores in the United States based on two and a half years of extensive research and consultation with the cRc's Av Beth Din, Rav Schwartz, shlit"a.... Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. And that is consistent with the lenient majority. We're trying to understand the cRc's ruling. There is no derabbanan here[, to justify another poster's invocation of safeiq derabbanan]. They're saying that the odds of your cup being washed without soap with a plate that held hot bacon or tereifah chicken is high enough that one needs to avoid taking that risk. But that's real nosein ta'am of an issur de'oraisa. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:56pm +0300 someone wrote to Areivim, on a discussion of the cRc's ruling against : I don't drink coffee at all, so I'm not a frequent Starbucks customer, but : I suspect that a sandwich like : https://www.starbucks.com/menu/food/sandwiches-panini-and-wraps/chicken-blt-salad-sandwich?foodZone=9999 : is probably at least 1/60th chicken or bacon. The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 13:17:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women Message-ID: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the topic of leadership/ordination for women. (I am indebted to some of those here who helped sharpen arguments :-) ). I think I have adequately illustrated that their position is based on wrong/unproven facts, poor logic, fuzzy definitions, strained arguments, and inconsistent application of the rules. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need to have a comprehensive and systematic approach to gender and public/leadership. I am happy to respond to questions, critiques and criticisms. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/sneak-peek-an-analysis-of-the-ban-on-women-rabbis/ Noam Stadlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 12:38:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926193827.GA27624@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:56:59AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: :> I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one :> may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if :> promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are :> currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. : From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: ... : It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as : tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his : minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But : what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka.... Agreed, but I don't see how it's obvious. Say your handyman is a pious guy, and rather than not doing business with people who can't afford his full rate, he charges them less for labor. Also, Rn Handyman isn't so willing to take the full hit on total income. Since this is a nice guy, we can assume that if more of the town were wealthier, his usual rate for someone who can beqoshi stretch the budget would be lower. Is the difference in salary tzedaqah? Does it make a difference if Reb Handyman actuall did this accounting and maybe even announced the resulting differential? Or is a baal melakhah's pay rate money owed, and such cheshbonos should be irrelevent. This imaginary scenario was designed to be both parallel and to my mind a somewhat wild line of reasoning. 1- Once you say that any tuition paid beyond the cost for your child is indeed tzedaqah, one needs a pesaq about how to apportion group costs to each individual student. The cost of the class divided by students, then the cost of school administation divided by the student body? Or maybe if a teacher is hired as soon as a class would otherwise grow beyond 25 students, I should be looking at the incremental cost of my child after the need to start the additional class was caused by someone else? And then -- could it depend on if I registered late, or before the number of classes was determined? And don't get me started on who is paying for resource room staff, where there are parallels to the above AND the reality that different kids would be using different amount of the service. So that my kid's 1 hour per week may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to get a math specialist, whereas another student's 5 hours of readin help is with a teacher they needed otherwise. Who pays what? 2- Once you make it tzedaqah, rather than considering tuition as debt, all could be fine-and-well halachically. And so it can come out of maaser kesafim. (All the more so because we aren't even sure maaser kesafim is a din.) And the schools like this, because it frees up maaser money for people who would otherwise need scholarship. But the line you're replying to was arguing that there is a downside for the school as well. As the teshuvah we started from notes -- debt is a higher priority than tzedaqah. You don't pay maaser out of money owed. And so, the school is marketing a din that may mean /less/ money for them than if the halakhah were that the full tuition should be treated as a debt. position for a sch chakhamim don't have to pay city defenses; maybe a good kid who doesn't see the principal should be considered : to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition : may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we : are discussing, since it is a poor community). GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 21:47:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> References: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4d52778a-5fe9-0dae-592c-ff6316a77877@sero.name> On 26/09/17 14:54, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health > department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough > regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. They wash in soapy water first, and then in clear water. The cRc's position is that soapy water, which is hotter than yad soledes bo but cooler than kashering temp, prevents the transmission of treife taam from one keli to another when they are washed together, but it does *not* render the treife keli permanently pagum. The treife keli comes out just as treif as it was, so when it's then put into *clean* hot water together with the kosher keli the treife taam transfers. > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical substance at all, so it's not surprising that even if it permeates the keli's entire structure, which we assume it does, it doesn't add to its mass. This is also why the bracha on coffee is shehakol, not ha'etz, because there is no substance of the coffee bean in the final product; only taam, smell, and colour are transferred in the brewing, all of which are assumed to have zero mass. Which makes the existence of instant coffee a conundrum, and casts doubt on the practise of saying shehakol also on coffee made from instant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Tabory via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom Message-ID: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. Yosef Tabory From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 08:26:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170927152646.GD1177@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote: : Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of : the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel : minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)... Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah. I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian "Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon, they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation -- 10 yemei teshuvah. To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh. : Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, : the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not : wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought : that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh : Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh) had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom" in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify abandoning it. ----- While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef, let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in "Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi yontef nusach for the joke to work. Why are so many Jews overweight? Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we sing: Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein! Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8), apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates! GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:30:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:30:33 +0000 Subject: “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux Message-ID: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> >From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")? A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart" (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13). IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me) GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:29:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:29:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds Message-ID: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense that A gets more credit(schar) than B? My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish, etc.) Thoughts? GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 19:34:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom Message-ID: . Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz. I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. Specifically: Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912 Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928 Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940 (Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.) Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949 Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950 Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960 The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960 Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982 There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this machlokes. However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different, and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America (who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 18:20:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical > substance at all, ... I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical substance? I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* be removed by cleaning. Gmar chasima tova to all, Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:21:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? Message-ID: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Please see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v I personally have always used money for Kapporas was. This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly mistreated before they are used for Kapporas. IIRC a few years ago it was discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water or food and died. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:31:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had to be discarded. After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost everywhere with the kapporos chickens. Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim: it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here. I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko. But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:48:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical >> substance at all, ... > > I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence > that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical > substance? I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a modern person to wrap ones head around. > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must > be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* > be removed by cleaning. If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing left to kasher! All you've done is clean the surface. There was never a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on the surface. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:54:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7096234e-1e3d-84c3-bb8b-dcfebecbb79f@starways.net> On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 10:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170928170022.GC32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence :> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical :> substance? : I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for : a modern person to wrap ones head around. I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT) about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion: : On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got :> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is :> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean :> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the :> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... : If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get : it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I : always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance : absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel : possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we understand an experience intellectually. This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs, etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience. My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer, than on the physics of the objects being utilized. Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance (like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance" (as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the past agreed with. If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked: > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the whole pot is indeed tainted. I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 12:03:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v ... : This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly : mistreated before they are used for Kapporas... That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens, not the minhag. This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag. The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag. In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it? Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori. (It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.) And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and "ve'ein leshanos". Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa") or not been doing kapparos at all. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 11:52:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588ee3662a16491c9404fcc82bfe2e8a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom. Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 28 22:03:26 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them > a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate object such as money. You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. > Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 29 13:15:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the : >Maharil)... : : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather from his own money. (Shelah) : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a meilitz yosher before going into din. I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the pidyon of the person. :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree.... Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag vasiqin"? GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht : Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a : life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it : with an inanimate object such as money. : : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but : the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after : kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or : else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The : Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, : since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. : : : >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- : >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were : doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand : it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. : : -- : Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, : zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all : _______________________________________________ : Avodah mailing list : Avodah at lists.aishdas.org : http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org : GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From zev at sero.name Fri Sep 29 13:33:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > : >Maharil)... > : > : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it > : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... > > Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather > from his own money. (Shelah) As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... > > Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is > inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer > to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a > meilitz yosher before going into din. Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka. Plus, kaporos is not done right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend doing it as much as a few days earlier). > I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have > primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation? > I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the > pidyon of the person. The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. > :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. > > : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means > : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its > : pedigree.... > > Source? It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". > He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously > suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves > pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin > to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition > fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag > vasiqin"? The same thing. Although don't know who gave this heter someone must have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we don't understand it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:05:15 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog Message-ID: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one? From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:14:07 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to another book which I don't own). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Sep 30 13:35:00 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: If I can mix actuality with the idea below: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. Ben On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the > Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after > kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or > else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer > Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since > it's less embarrassing to the recipient. From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:22:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c1fa29c-aa4b-122a-0dce-bfe50d5e5e32@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 > minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of > Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). > > What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to > another book which I don't own). Shulchan aruch OC 649. See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like the Rambam. Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being covered in more red berries than leaves, etc. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 19:18:58 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov Message-ID: . A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group: > The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when > Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is > known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is > a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one > is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in > for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving > lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed > and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good > both physically and spiritually! When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos. My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov? I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos. Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years, I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic - allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running, Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote "Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".) So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Looking forward to your responses. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sat Sep 30 18:03:12 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171001010312.GA17048@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". : > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will : > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give : > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather : > from his own money. (Shelah) : : As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do : kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. : Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos : is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give : tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. : >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is : >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer : >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a : >meilitz yosher before going into din. : : Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama : and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all : of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) As you yourself write, epmashsis added: : The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, : instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can : buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. : >: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : >: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : >: pedigree.... : > : >Source? : : It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a : plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find "vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim. Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless. The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the chain was already broken for a couple of generations. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 21:05:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3040f2fc-ea44-2eaf-3016-6c25f3b8b9c6@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and > sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the > mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only > applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar one may buy the cheaper one. The second opinion is that even if both are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a third more for the better one. This rule is not just for esrog, it's in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b). > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you can)? If > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a > hiddur to buy one? It means neither one. You left out a word. The Mechaber's language is "*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish". One should buy the better one, *if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior one. If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it. But there's certainly no restriction if you want to. The gemara says "Up to a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:25:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If I can mix actuality with the idea below: > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 > > What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with > tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or > honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that > affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in > Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck. There's nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-) Especially on Erev Yom Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah. The scandal is that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah. If they shechted them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared. [Email #2] On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". >:> And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will >:> be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give >:> maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather >:> from his own money. (Shelah) >: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do >: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. >: Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos >: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give >: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person > to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. We clearly have switched topics. There is no other way to read the Rama. The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka. The Rama says that we should not change this minhag. Then he says how it should be done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white. *Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the person. and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam". It's a pidyon just like pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the poor, we buy it back from tzedaka. >:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is >:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer >:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a >:> meilitz yosher before going into din. >: Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama >: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all >: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... > The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor > person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly. The minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them money. On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable. See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned earlier. So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery. See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to the poor. (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.) > (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about > a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes > no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) Where did you get this idea? There's nothing about it in the source we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen. The pasuk from Iyov is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" that we will shecht instead of this "gever". It has nothing to do with doing a mitzvah. Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov. > As you yourself write, epmashsis added: >: The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, >: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can >: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this. Giving it to the poor is a separate minhag. BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries or something, but you think it's good enough for them. This isn't a logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money prevents it. On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy day). >:>: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means >:>: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its >:>: pedigree.... This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an old minhag". But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised what it was. "Vosik" does not mean old. You're confusing it with "`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; strong; distinguished". "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a distinguished scholar". "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee distinguished among the nations". "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the conscientiously pious men of former days." So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn because they can't sleep anyway:-) [Email #3] PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really. https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7 defines it in leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced". So even when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time itself but to the experience gained over that time. The etymology is not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy". It does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, but of experience. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 1 19:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" Message-ID: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> 1) Balaam advocates the destruction of an entire people. He is a hired gun (or mouth) who has exploited his prophetic gift and is willing to help implement a genocide for the right price. This type of individual has separated himself from all people, hence, this position of his is coded in his very name Balaam, "B'li Am," "without a people." 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is called an "aton.? Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of the physical. But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey, therefore his donkey speaks to him -- the inference being that Balaam has descended to an animalistic level, and that is the symbolism of the donkey talking to him. I see it as "chamor" in the sense of "heavy" referring to Abraham, since he carries so much more weight than Balaam. On the other hand, Balaam's donkey is called ?aton,? very similar to the word "etnan" which means a "harlot's pay? ? quitet fascinating since Balaam prostituted himself with the intention of fulfilling Balak's request. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.? Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 2 08:25:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: RMB wrote: > IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than > Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ > that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what > the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions > in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) > believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in > 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. Indeed, I recall, upon dealing with those various shittos while in RIETS, particularly as covered by Rav Charlop in a shiur of his, that Satmar and Rav Kook are a lot closer to each other than to Agudah & Rav Soloveitchik. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 09:14:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:14:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?What_is_the_correct_way_to_pronounce_Hashem?= =?cp1255?q?=92s_name_in_Shmoneh_Esrei_and_other_brachos=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170703161444.GC18193@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Halacha Yomis ... : A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D ... "We have : a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, : that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY : -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf : Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." First, we know from seifer Shoferim that different shevatim had different accents, such that Shevet Ephraim (like Litvaks of a much later date) pronounced as right-dotted shin the same as a sin or samekh. So how can we talk about a single accent even at Har Sinai? I therefore assume RSZE Hy"d was saying that you need to use your mesorah's patach-cholam-qamatz, as he spells out in the rephrasing. And that these vowels are what's misinai. Which is also problematic, as the division of various possible vowel alophones into specific phonemes probably didn't happen until Teverya. This next paragraph may make your eyes glaze over. It justifies the previous one, but feel free to skip it if it bores you and move on to the next point: Which explains why Bavel's nequdos don't line up one-to-one with the ones we use today -- one symbol for segol and patach and one symbol for qamatz qatan and cholam with a different one for. And the prior Israeli system fits Sepharadi pronounciation, fewer symbols showing less differentiation, but it could simply be less precise. The way we still have one symbol for qamatz qatan and qamatz gadol, or sheva na and sheva nach. (Unless you are using a "simanim" or other non-standard printing. Unicode actually supports this differentiation, if you find a font and a text file that distinguishes.) One symbol does not mean one phoneme. But it hints at how the locals viewer the vowels. Like Rashi, who echoes the Babylonian single segol-patach system when he refers to a segol as a patach qatan. (If you are still reading this paragraph, you'd probably enjoy our mesorah email list. Ask me to sign you up!) R Rallis Weisenthal (CC-ed), in his siddur in memory of Qh"Q Bad Homburg pg LXV (on opensiddur.org), lists traditional Ashkneazi cholam sounds, claiming that they're all dipthongs. ("Claiming", because I am not sure he's right on one of them): Poland, Austria-Hungary komatz chirik O^i [t]oy Lithuania, Russia segol chirik Ae^i [p]ay Northern Germany, Holland patach shuruk A^u [h]ow Southern Germany, Switzerland, France, Latvia, England, North America komatz shuruk O^u [g]o I think the Lithuanian cholam was originally more like /oe/ a sound halfway between /o/ and a tzeirei. (And the /e/ of the tzeirei isn't quite the same as a segol.) What he is describing reflects later Polish influence, a compromise position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio could help here. And I think the British cholam actually is rounder than a qamatz, like a long /O/ in English. And like a long /O/, there is a tendency to add a rounding /w/ (eg "blow"), but it's not always there. Maybe a dipthong of qamatz qatan and a /w/, which is shitas haGra. Not entirely different than what RRW writes, but also not quite as implied from his description. Anyway, he has a continuing discussion by R' Y Kramer againt using a /y/ or /i/ sound to round a cholam. Go to the above link. It's too long and two bi-lingual for me to cut-n-paste here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 10:03:51PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. : However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is : called an "aton." : Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) : suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of : the physical. : But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey... Thus the root "aleph-tav", meaning together with (eg "ito bateivah"). The Gra makes this point about riding a chamor being mastery of one's chomer vs being together with one's ason. I bet RAK cites him. He lurks here, but I took the liberty of CC-ing RAK so as to get his attention. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 11:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The Maharal -- preceded the Gra on this point. Here is a paragraph from the new edition of Explorations (anticipated 20th anniversary edition) The denouement of history is in our hands. The Mashiach will be revealed in clouds of glory if we are worthy; if we are unworthy, our redemption will be of a far less exalted nature. If we are deserving, the clouds will be revealed sooner; if not, the redemption will take longer, and the process will be slow and plodding -- but the redemption will surely come. And just as the clouds are an image that is laden with meaning, representing man's ability to recognize and connect to the metaphysical plane, so, too, the image of the Messiah as a poor man riding on his donkey is no mere literary device: According to mystical sources, this metaphor holds the key to the redemption itself: The Zohar[1] explains that the role of Mashiach is to ride on the chamor, to subdue the physical.[2] ________________________________ [1] Zohar Bemidbar 207a ???? ??? ? ?? ??/? ????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?????"?. ?????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??????????, (????? ??) ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????"? ?????????. ?????? ???? ??????, ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? Those of the right are all merged in one called "donkey," and that is the donkey of which it is written, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" [Devarim 22:10]. That is also the donkey which the King Mashiach shall control. (Zohar, Bemidbar 207a) [2] See comments of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael chapter 40. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? - ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ?"? ???????? ???"? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????...??"? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. Can I repeat that second line on list? As for the first line... In general, email lists are failing. And yet, I don't want to move Avodah to a medium that encourages quick and short answers. If Avodah can't remain a place for in-depth discussion, I'll let it fade away. Mail-Jewish, the grand-daddy in the field, is coming out with a digest every two weeks or so. Although it's healthier than Avodah in terms of breadth of contributor pool. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 07:54:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it Message-ID: Recently, someone quoted a friend as saying something about how doing something for the wrong reason could constitute making the Mishna Burah into an Avodah Zara. Or something like that, I don't remember exactly, and I spent almost an hour trying to find the post, so that's why I can't quote it. Anyway, that person was wondering where the idea came from, and I found the following in the current issue of Jewish Action, also available online at https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ > Love of Torah does not always translate into love of > people ? or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk > caustically noted that increased religious observance is not > always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather > sometimes it is for the sake of ?worshipping the Shulchan Aruch.? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 11:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad Message-ID: Mishnah Megillah 4:9 teaches us: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad just like he blesses for the good." That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are talking about two different situations: If one has actually experienced something, then he must bless God for the good *OR* for the bad, whichever applies to the experience. There is no need to be inclusive, to mention that He is responsible for both. But when one speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when he must mention both the good and the bad. Or perhaps he can speak in generalities, but he must be careful not to suggest that God does *only* good things, to the exclusion of painful things: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that He *does* good. The things He does is described mostly in terms of the life He gives us, and the miracles that He does. (It is true that at one point it we thank Him for "tovosecha" - Your good things - but that is secondary, coming after "niflaosecha".) But then we turned to the fourth bracha of Birkas Hamazon, usually referred to as "Hatov v'haMaytiv" - "the One who is good, and does good" - from the central words. And then it continues: "Hu haytiv, hu maytiv, hu yaytiv lanu" - "He has done good, He does do good, and He will do good to us." And it closes with: "He will never deprive us of anything good." Where is the bad? In what way is this bracha not a violation of this mishna in Megilla? I concede that we've left out the Mishna's word "yizacher", but I don't think that is relevant. It appears to go directly against what the Gemara Megilla wrote, "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad." Is there any way to reconcile this gemara with this bracha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 13:44:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/07/17 14:54, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But when one > speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when > he must mention both the good and the bad. No. There is no need to mention all the things He does. Nor is there any need, when thanking Him for the good things He does, to include also the other things He does. What one may not do is declare that He is *to be thanked for* the good things He does, which implies He is *not* to be thanked for the other things he does. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:15:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered Message-ID: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:17:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:17:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 08:00:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170706150007.GD11698@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:17:31PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? : If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at : all minyanim? By whom? In an alternate reality, where I went into kelei qodesh instead of Wall Street programming jobs, there is (would have been?) a movement by now called Mevaqshei Tov veYosher, a/k/a Other-Focused Orthodoxy (OFO). The OFO flagship shul, Yishrei Leiv, hosts AishDas programming, of course, and at this point in alternate time, has a number of ve'adei mussar, shiurim in machashavah and workshops in tefillah. And, in line with OFO ideology, the rule for who can correct the baal qeri'ah is simple. The only people who can do so are (would be): 1- the gabbaim, 2- the rav, and 3- next week's baal qeri'ah . (Everyone else should go to the gabbaim quietly. Even at the expense of an occasional repeated pasuq. But also gabbaim would need to know diqduq and be able to field the simpler questions of which mistakes actually require correction.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 7 15:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:51:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION Message-ID: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> I sent an email to AVODAH where I mistakenly wrote that Rav Rivkas from Rabbeinu HaGra's family did not write Be'er Hagolah seeking to correct their misspelling. I wrote Bay.ur Hagolah. NEITHER is correct. He wrote B' er HaGolah. there is a shva under the Bais. I ws mistakenly thinking of ppl mistakenly saying Biur HaGra instead of Bay.ur Hagra. My mistake but as least I was thinking of the Gra. :) Reb Joel -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:51:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] the desire to be remembered Message-ID: <000001d2f823$a6448d60$f2cda820$@actcom.net.il> I would call this the need for recognition or the desire for kavod. I think it is a yetzer akin to the need for food or the desire for sex, the yetzer hara that is 'tov la'adam' as Bereshit Rabba puts it. Without the appetite for food, we would probably die of malnutrition; without the desire for sexual pleasure we would probably not want to procreate, and without the desire for kavod/recognition, we would probably be sociopaths. Our need for recognition (desire to be remembered, if you prefer) enables everything from toilet training to basic manners to our desire to contribute positively to society. If we did not need the approval of our parents and our peers, we would never get far enough along the path of social interaction to learn the rewarding nature of altruism and doing good for the sake of doing good. The process of socialization makes us human. Without our need for kavod/approval/recognition, it is hard to see how we could ever be educated. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 14:24:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:24:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India Message-ID: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties between Israel and India? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 19:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India In-Reply-To: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> References: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 08/07/17 17:24, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol > worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties > between Israel and India? I don't see why. There were treaties between our ancient kings and foreign rulers, pretty much all of whom served AZ. And of course there's the treaty between Yaacov & Lavan, which was explicitly backed by each party's deity/ies. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 08:24:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION In-Reply-To: <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> References: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59624AA6.4070406@schnurassociates.com> at least I know that there are some people actually reading what I send out, so TY 2 Rabbi Ralbag, shimon, Capt Dan and I think Mendy for responding. as for the rabbi's comment, I am pleased to see/read that he has a good sense of humor. I also learned how to spell email in Hebrew. My announced CORRECTION reminds me of the incident with Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he had a prober for being Rosh Hayeshiva for KOL TORAH. he was giving his shiur and someone corrected him. He stopped, thought about it and then said 'taeeti" figuring he blew his chance for getting the job. Afterwards they told him he was selected as RY and he supposedly said "but I blew it when I made that mistake." Just the opposite they said. We want someone who is able to admit he made a mistake. and with that story, I end this adventure. :) B'yidedus, Joel > Rav Ralbag > July 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM > ?? JOEL: > ???? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. > ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????-??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? > ????? !! > ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? - ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? > ??? !!!!??? > ??? ???? ????? ?????-????? ! > ????? ???? ???? ??? ?-?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ??????? ??? ????? > ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? - ?????, ???? ????? ???? > ???? !!! > ??????? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, > ???? ????? On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, mendy stern wrote: > So you want to be the Rosh Yeshiva? Only if the yeshiva davens nusach HaGra! Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 19:36:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? ---------------- My shul does not, except that the previous (now deceased Rav) was very against it, quoting the Tur about embarrassing the Baal Korei. That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 20:00:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:00:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <04ba01d2f928$bced1db0$36c75910$@gmail.com> R' JR: R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? ------------------------ Maslow's highest level in his Hierarchy of Needs (in its later permutations) is self-transcendence. I think that's what you're talking about. Here's some further on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcenden ce KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 02:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:45:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ================================ We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 09:24:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: ?Pinhas? has turned back Chamati, My wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11) So, Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous, difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamati (my wrath), the two outside letters chet and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters, mem and tav, read meit ? death. The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meit) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai). (Also, if you remove the "W" (for Wilderness) from "wrath" and replace it with "O" (for Obedience to God), the ?orath? can be rearranged to read Torah). Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live. Norman Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 11:58:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:37am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote to Areivim: : In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla : attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. : : My review and analysis of his failed approach to halacha is at : http://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/2017/7/7/the-not-so-orthodox-embrace-of-the-new-age-movement Although RBR posted to Areivim, I have an Avodah question. To quote: > To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For > example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has > been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to > the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved > as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies > it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, > or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it > globally. And the article discusses things like auras and other New Age ideas that if traced back to their origins one will find AZ. Is it all that different than the gemara's discussion or wearing a fox's tooth, where even a Rationalist like the Rambam (Shabbos 19:13) permits? Darkhei Emori are allowed for refu'ah (AZ 67a). Also Rashi (Chullin 77b "yeish") which according to the Panim Me'iros (1:36) includes any act to the body to be healed, but not "spooky action at a distance" (to quote Dr Einstein out of context). The Ran (Chullin ad loc) based on this Rashi explicitly permits any act we know works to heal, even if the workings are metaphysical. So is the difference only in which metaphysics I personally believe is real, and which is -- again, IMHO -- "woowoo"? And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? Are the laws of tereifos, which say put despite later findings about what an animal can live 12 months with, and what not, typical and precedent to say we go with Chazal's science, law is law, ignore the science? Or is it an exception because tereifos is halakhah leMoshe miSinai? I could see the standard of medical testing being decided by that question... Or... when it comes to which saqanos one is allowed to risk, the standard is normal and accepted. If people tend to climb trees to pick dates, it is mutar to get a job risking a fall from the top of a date-palm. Perhaps medicine too is defined by societal standards. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 12:27:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> References: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> Message-ID: And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 14:47:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170710214723.GA29132@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to : be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this : desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's : knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or : general society)? >From a recent blog post of mine, The Interpersonal Aspect of Parah Adumah : To illustrate how the Yerushalmi works, I enjoy taking a rather extreme case -- Berakhos 7:1, 51b: 1. Rav Huna said: Three who eat, this one by himself, this one by himself, and this one by himself, who then mix together should bentch with a mezuman. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three people, so that each ate with an obligation of zimun, even if from different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may make a zimun] when they ate together. 1. Rabbi Yonah [commented] on that which Rab Hunah [was just quoted as saying]: If [the kohein] dipped three hyssop sprigs [into the water made with the ashes of a parah adumah], this one by itself and this one by itself, and mixed them [the hyssops] together, one may sprinkle [the person needing taharah] with them. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three sprigs, so that each sprig was dipped as part of a group of three, even if different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may may be used for sprinkling parah adumah water] when they were dipped together. ... But what justifies this comparison? Is it really an expectation that all groups of three ought to be alike, regardless of the topic or the sort of group? In 1973, Ernest Becker wrote a book on philosophy and psychology titled "The Denial of Death". To give a thumbnail of his basic thesis, here are some snippets from [38]The Becker Foundation's "Theories" page: "[T]he basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death." ... The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of mortality. Since human beings have a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we can transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving the symbolic half. Becker describes human pursuit of "immortality projects" (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things. Still, for Becker, the only suitable source of meaning is transcendent, cosmic energy, divine purpose... Becker develops an idea that strikes most of us naturally. A central -- and perhaps THE central -- piece of our drives to contribute to community and to pursue a higher meaning is because these both overcome our own death. What I give my children outlives me in my children, grandchildren and beyond. What I contribute to the Jewish People is eternal because our nation is eternal. What I add to the development of humanity from Adam to the messiah outlives me in impacting the lives of generations to come. Fear of death, the need to embark on "immortality projects" can push us to expand our souls to beyond our mortal bodies. As Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to his substance and body. Above that one is someone who feels that his "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above that one is someone who can include in his "ani" all of his household and family.... And there are more levels in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the world and worlds are his "ani," and he himself is only one small limb in all of creation.... Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and [even] all of creation. The parah adumah is about overcoming death. A person who witnessed or experienced another's death is told to go through a ritual of changing tracks... He not only sees three sprigs from a scrubby bush, but also is thinking about joining together and how he can join with others. How to turn that conversation around from death and its reminder that we are merely physical beings toward death as a drive to go beyond that. We should not forget the most cryptic (choq-like) element of the parah adumah. ... [I]t requires that someone from the community reach out to them, even at their own expense. A true uniting of someone who might be thinking about death and man-as-mammal back into being a person contributing meaning to a larger community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 19:08:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on > chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better > standards for testing medicine? R' Joel Rich responded: > The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud > certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and > correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with > sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what > was known to them in their time." > > I'd appreciate specific examples I recently tried to learn a bit about Techum Shabbos. I was very surprised to find an entire siman (#399, with eleven se'ifim), giving details of exactly how the techum is to be measured. For example, the first se'if specifies that we must use a linen rope exactly 50 amos long. I was very surprised that the halacha would write such things, rather than simply presuming that we'd be smart enough to use whatever procedures are generally accepted as accurate. This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do it. The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective one, and tradition might rule. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 21:51:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> R' JR: We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. -------------------------------- I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 04:56:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fb6f6b1-b8cd-4075-09ea-8f770a1b66bd@zahav.net.il> If the person is reading from a full Bible, I will just listen. If I am not sure what book he's reading from, I'll read it to myself. IIRC the Mishna Bruria takes it as a given that the reason most shuls don't read from the klaf is because of the cost. Given today's incomes and fancy shuls, that shouldn't be a factor. And yet, it is the rare beit knesset where they read from a klaf. Ben On 7/11/2017 6:51 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? > > KT, > MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 15:50:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170711225048.GA29349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be : corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to : themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach : Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. : : Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? I will confirm. ... WRT shuls that aren't leining from kelaf. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 17:09:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 18:31:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170712013159.GA6359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, : who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a : surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, : they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do : it. Say I were to use a shorter rope. Well, then my measurments would include more dips and bumps. Whereas the 50 ammah rope might cut a direct path, a shorter rope would have two segments, in different angles. The measure would be longer than if you just cut the tangent. (And in fact, since most landscape is fractal, or nearly fractal until you get cown to molecules, if your "ruler" were smaller than a grain of sand, you could probably measure 50 amos along the wrinkles of the surface within an arm's reach of where you started.) So, the length of the rope will actually change the final measure. The navi implies that a shorter rope would be /too/ accurate, forcing a smaller measure than necessary. The weight of the chain means that sagging is more common, as lest if you aren't a surveyor. Or maybe the exact strechiness of linen - less than wool but more than metal, is also part of the actual measure. ... : The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might : agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better : procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring : distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular : procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective : science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective And to reframe where I was going above in these terms: There are times when Chazal are not trying to establish objective facts. (Or, to revive another old thread and my hangup about how halakhah defines metzi'us: ... to establish as objectively as possible those facts that could potentially enter our subjective experience.) In nidon didan, the question would be: In order for a treatment not to be derekh emori, and to be allowed on Shabbos where medicine for a choleh sh'ein bo saqanah would be allows, does it 1- have to be established as potentially effect to the best we can establish it? or 2- have to be accepted as potentially effective by chazaqah, which is the normal rule for justifying presumption in cases of doubt? How objetive are we being asked to be? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 12 19:06:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:06:59 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not Shechted? Meaning, if we have a creature that cannot be Shechted, but it is not a non-Kosher species, it might be a Neveilah but be Kosher to eat because there is no prohibition on eating Neveilah. The non-fully gestated cow sheep or goat, even if it is born in the normal manner, is not classified in Halacha as Bakar or Tzon. See Rashi Chulin 72b end of Mishneh. It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 03:33:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170713103351.GD14756@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:54:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ :> Love of Torah does not always translate into love of :> people -- or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk :> caustically noted that increased religious observance is not :> always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather :> sometimes it is for the sake of "worshipping the Shulchan Aruch." In R' Shlomo Wolbe, Alei Shur, vol II, "Frumkeit" , speaks of halachic obervant not for the sake of worshipping G-d, but speaks to why one would "worship the SA" if it isn't about G-d. A translation of the opening: > Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge to connect to the Creator. This > instinct is also found in animals. King David said, " The young lions roar > after their prey, and seek their food from G-d." (Psalms 104:21) "He gives > to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." (Psalms 147:9) > There is no need to understand these verses as [mere] figures of > speech -- animals have an instinctive sense that there exists One who > is concerned about their sustenance. This instinct [also] operates in > man -- on a higher level, of course. This natural frumkeit [instinct] > assists us in our service of G-d, and without this natural assistance > our service would would be extremely heavy upon us. However, frumkeit, > like any other instinctive urge that operates within man, is naturally > egotistical and self-centered. Accordingly, frumkeit drives a person to > do only that which is good for himself -- [in contrast, positive] actions > between man and his fellow man, as well as wholehearted actions between > man and G-d are not fueled by frumkeit. One who bases his service on it > alone remains egocentric. Even if he were to impose many stringencies > upon himself, he would not become a man of kindness, and he would not > reach [the level of] altruistic service. This is what necessitates that > we base our service specifically on intellect... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 16:31:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:00:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3abd2947-8a52-7433-c908-731af71507b2@sero.name> On 13/07/17 19:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr > Gouraud of the US. Google misinforms you. See, e.g., http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1412.htm#20 Or, lehavdil, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/1935454 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:37:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> R' MB: The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. --------------------------------- Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which was intended for facial hair. KT, MYG P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:11:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20170714151122.GB32531@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: : Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which : was intended for facial hair. It says that the poor "waxed" themselves with sid; and I am assumign that's not for skin as sensitive as cheeks. The rich used soles. Was this as an abrasive? Is fine flour even abrasive, or (as I seem to recall of today's grindings) -- soft? I think the rich used white makeup. And benos melakhim used shemen hamor, which we are told is acidic olive oil from underripe olives. While I do not doubt that benos melakhim tried this a means to reduce hair growth (the gemara says it also ma'adan habasar) I do doubt it worked. More recently (meaning, up to the mass production of depilatories) in Europe, cat's urine (for the ammonia, a strong base) or vinegar (an acid) were used. Both were believed to prevent or reduce hair growth, not remove what did gwo. But both failed double-blind testing. : P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use : wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. Many NA nations also tend to produce far less facial hair than most Jewish men to start with. I guess people can learn to get used to it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714152753.GA14639@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:59PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not : Shechted? In his Bar Mitzvah derashah, R' Chaim Brisker proved that neveilah and tereifah were aspects of the same underlying issur. Thus explaining (among other points I do not remember) why the Rambam holds that a neveilah and a tereifah can be metz'tarfos to a kezayis issur. Which would imply that WRT eating, all non-shechted meat is the same, and the issur is the lack of shechitah, not the tum'as neveilah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:47:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714154729.GB14639@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies : that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that : contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad : just like he blesses for the good." But that doesn't mean he must bless for the bad whenever he blesses for the good. Which is I think the chiluq that resolves the problems you raised. : That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say : one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one : experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On : *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is : irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Actually, even painful effects of the same occasion. Like the textbook case: Inheriting a large some of money requires making both Dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. : Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are : talking about two different situations... I think they are both talking about the good and tragic in the same situations. The first mishnah is prohibiting someone from even implying in a non-response context that when experiencing tragedy, one can skip Dayan ha'emes. : So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually : followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It : turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is : mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that : He *does* good.... Mah beinaihu? After all, all His "Middos" are about appearances and how the effects of his Action look to us. And actually, it pretty explicitly says in one point that it's about G-d appearing to us as Good -- "'haTov' shimkha". But as I opened, I didn't see Megillah as saying when we offer general thanks, it must be about both. Rather, he cannot be the kind of peson that skips thanking Him for those things He does "for our own good" (to paraphrase the stereotypical parent line). And thus, no problem in the 4th berakhah of bentching, either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:08:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: . R' Meir G Rabi asked: > It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just > like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. Why can't a horse be shechted? Is it missing the simanim? Of course, it would still be assur to eat the horse because it is a tamay species, but would that prevent one from doing a valid shechita? (I vaguely recall a case where a choleh sheyesh bo sakana was prescribed pork by his doctor, and the rav told him to shecht the chazir.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:02:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of him that is generally accepted as accurate? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:26:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure > I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone > reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only > the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go > 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? I have no idea what you mean by "litvishe" in this context. Do you mean Nusach Ashenaz, or Yeshivish, or In A Yeshiva, or something else? Anyway, in the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls and yeshivos that I have attended, virtually no one reads the haftara to himself, regardless of whether the Reader is reading from a klaf, a printed Tanach, or a Chumash. And those few who *do* read it to themselves are (unfortunately) loud enough to make it difficult to hear the Reader. In the Nusach Sefard shuls I've been to, there much more people reading to themselves. In fact, the Reader often doesn't even attempt to raise his voice so that others can hear him. But I've attended Nusach Sefard shuls rarely enough that I cannot venture a guess about the percentages. R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:23:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:23:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185632c6b5e74915992256cfd1207daf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ because I assumed that one was not being yotzeih with that reading but one's own Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 20:00:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:00:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes > are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of > the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an > educational thing"? I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. There is a chiyuv for a tzibur to read the Torah, although not on any individual to hear it. Even if ten men come into shul after krias hatorah they do not have to make it up, but if it was not read at all then the tzibur must make it up. But with the haftarah even if it was not read at all they need not make it up; this shows that there is no chiyuv, and therefore nothing that can be said not to have been fulfilled. Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:24:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? Or to be less pretencious: *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos on the other side? My wife is a righty and we use joint accounts. We are both listed as owners, and both of our names were on the mortgage. Even if I were supposed to hang my mezuzos on the left, are we shutefim in owning the house and therefore it should follow the rightward norm? I asked R' Gidon Rothstein, since it was his recent post on Torah Musings that launched my wondering, and he felt that it would go by the assumption that typical people coming in and out of the house are righty, and the owner's handedness shouldn't matter. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 08:25:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> References: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/07/17 22:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the > baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? > > Or to be less pretencious:*Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his > mezuzos on the other side? I wouldn't expect it, because I don't see any sevara to differentiate between houses based on who the owner is. Mezuzah is (lich'orah) a chovas cheftza, and the house is not left-handed! (See http://tinyurl.com/y9btfa9c , who cites R Chaim Brisker, Stencil #3) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/2017 6:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes >> are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of >> the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an >> educational thing"? > > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let > alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply that it's not just casual reading? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170716193026.GA17994@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that : imply that it's not just casual reading? to strengthen the point, that "we" includes Sepharadim, who don't make berakhos on minhagim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 19:16:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28c39ae9-0df9-89c0-ea06-a5e1b0b700a7@sero.name> On 16/07/17 15:20, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let >> alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. > > But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply > that it's not just casual reading? It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a missed haftara. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:42:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The problem with OU DE In-Reply-To: References: <1500310874499.90870@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170718214244.GA27595@aishdas.org> On 7/17/2017 7:03 PM, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: > Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a > Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel > bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is > that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not > simultaneously. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote: : Why not? Bateil is bateil. See Chullin 11b. Dagim that "alu" into a qe'ara of meat may be eaten with milchig. But going on a plate of meat -- what does that mean? Does it mean cooking? Ashkenazim hold, "'alu' -- aval lo nisbashlu". It's na"t bar na"t. The Tur, the YD 95, the BY's discussion of the Rivan and Tosafos, Rama YD s' 2, the Shakh s"q 3, and the AhS s' 5,11-15 assert as much halakhah lema'aseh. The way you treat bitul, there would be no such thing as nosein ta'am. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:24:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: <596E7C94.5030109@schnurassociates.com> Our K'vasikin minyan at the Young Israel of Ave k in Flatbush, K & East 29, (45 minutes before HaNetz on Shabbos and YT, 30 minutes on cholo shel moed and RH), reads from a klaf only al pi HaGra and only the baal k'riah reads while everyone else just listens and answers awmen (no BHUS) -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos > on the other side? Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it on the right side of the one who enters." And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 16:47:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:47:22 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: R Akiva Miller asked - why can a horse not be Shechted? A horse cannot be Shechted the same way that a G cannot perform Shechitah. Shechitah is not a mechanical action performed to meet certain criteria - Shechitah requires the right person, the right animal and the proper action. The Mishneh Chullin 72b asks a Q we would never ask, in fact it takes a very long time to actually read and make sense of the Mishneh, so counter intuitive is its premise. Why is it that a horse is a Neveilah even if it is Shechted whereas a cow which is Shechted is not a Neveilah in spite of it being a Tereifa? In our mind, the non-Kosher status of a Tereifa is a consequence of its ritual blemish which in no way affects the Shechitah; of course the Shechitah should prevent the animal becoming a Neveilah. But that is not how the Mishneh sees things - the Mishneh understands that the Tereifa status of the cow invalidates the Shechitah - it is, in the Mishneh's mind, equivalent to Shechting a horse. The Mishneh answers that Yesh BeMino Shechitah - meaning, although the animal itself ought to be deemed not Shechted, nevertheless as a species it has an association with Shechitah so the Shechitah will, in spite of being imperfect, prevent it becoming a Neveilah. And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. R Micha already noted that this touches upon the [in]famous bar-mitzvah Pshettel of R Chaim. But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The Gemara [Chullin 113] requires a special Ribbuy to teach that there is an Issur to cook premature born cow with milk Gedi LeRabbos Es HaShellil. Why? Why might we think it is not like a regular cow? The Tiferes YaAkov explains that such an animal has no Issur Cheilev, Chullin 75a, which is unsurprising considering that it is not a BeHeimah, so we may well have argued there is no Issur BBCh; KMLan that it is deemed to be Bassar for the Issur of BBCh. Now think about this - a Jew may not cook nor eat BBCh If a Yid however is about to eat Cheilev, which he may not cook with milk since it is deemed to be Bassar, we cannot warn him that he is transgressing the Issur of eating BBCh. Why? Because Ein Issur Chal Al Issur - once the Issur of Cheilev is already in place the later Issur of BBCh cannot take hold. Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Which seems to indicate that although it is a Neveilah, there is no Issur to eat a prematurely born cow. [To be sure we would need to verify that it has not entered its ninth month.] Hence my Q - Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:23:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, > let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps "minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes? > Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read > at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is that we're supposed to be doing? In a later post, he wrote: > It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's > takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that > one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias > hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this > from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it > must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a > missed haftara. I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read. Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:31:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> On 7/19/2017 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay > when the haftarah is read improperly? I don't think the question works. Consider: we have a chiyuv to daven shmoneh esrei. But there are different girsaot, so clearly, exact wording isn't critical to fulfilling the requirement. So we already see that there are different levels of chiyuvim, and that we are more medayek on exact wording on some levels than others. Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to something like haftara than there is for Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719101803.GA11560@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos :> on the other side? : Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it : on the right side of the one who enters." : And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And : there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Besheim the Mordechai. The Shakh) says this is true even if the lefty lives alone or the whole family is lefty. Because mezuzah is a chiyuv on the house, not like tefillin's chiyuv, which is on the guf. The Be'eir Heiteiv quotes the Shakh, adding "vekhein nohagim". The AhS (s' 5) gives multiple reasons: 1- A house is made for anyone who lives there, not this specific person. Which might be the same explanation, might not. Seems related to the fact that we do not take mezuzos down when the next owner is Jewish. 2- He contrasts to tefillin, where the pasuq uses the word "yadkha" and we darshen "yad keihah", whereas "beisekha" is used to darshen the din that it's direction from which one enters. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 05:46:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84213f099d8841fb92a75e4a8d758038@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 04:27:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's > surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" > when it comes to something like haftara than there is for > Torah. We seem to agree that it *IS* possible to read the haftarah IMproperly, in contrast to R' Zev Sero, who wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be > read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't > be invalid. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 06:52:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> On 18/07/17 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas > chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, But that is key. What is a chiyuv, or rather in Hebrew a chovah? As anyone who's read an Ivrit bank statement or balance sheet can tell you, it's a liability. "Lotzeis y'dei chovah", or "being yotzei", means discharging that liability. If there is no chovah then there is nothing from which to exit; one cannot speak of being yotzei something that is not a chiyuv. Now krias hatorah is not a chovah on any individual. If one missed leining one shabbos one needn't make it up. Even if there are 10 men who missed it, and therefore could make it up if they wanted to, they don't. But it is a chovah on the tzibbur; if for some reason an entire community was unable to read the Torah one week they must make it up the next week by reading two sedros. If they don't then their liability has not been discharged. When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". Of course if it is to be read it should be read correctly. *Anything* that is read should be read correctly; there is no virtue in reading carelessly, as if one's words are of no importance so it doesn't matter if one butchers them. But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, and since not reading it leaves no undischarged liability on the community therefore a bad reading doesn't do so either. > Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim > correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is > that we're supposed to be doing? Suppose my argument is incorrect, and there *is* some obligation which the community must discharge? How long a reading counts? We know that the gemara's mention of 21 pesukim is merely a recommendation, since we routinely disregard it. So how small *can* we make it? By analogy with krias hatorah we can say that fewer than three pesukim is not a reading at all. But maybe the analogy is inapt, and the takana is fulfilled by *any* reading from the nevi'im, even just one pasuk, or perhaps even a single phrase. After all the whole takanah is simply in memory of the time when krias hatorah was banned, so we read nevi'im instead; so perhaps even a very small reading is enough to evoke this memory. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, >>> This illustrates why I suggested avoiding words like "chiyuv". Is our goal to be in a status of "no worse than not having read it at all"? Surely not! If we would be satisfied with such, then why do we bother reading it? Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I don't understand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:36:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: <51a89e09-5077-e733-156f-9027c6f70dc9@sero.name> On 19/07/17 13:20, Akiva Miller wrote: > > Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting > someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or > whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems > to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I > don't understand. I'm saying that it's not *required*, and therefore it becomes a highly situational question of balancing the reader's sensitivity and the tircha detzibura against a desire to hear a haftara that doesn't grate on the nerves. There's no "I'm sorry but if we don't correct him we won't be yotzei". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 12:43:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719194312.GA13614@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. : I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of : him that is generally accepted as accurate? Mequbalim in Itali had a mesorah from the Rama miFano (late 16th - early 17th cent) that beards were only appropriate in EY. The Ramchal's lack of beard was mentioned in the charges against him when he was drummed out of Italy for teaching a very messianic Qabbalah too soon after Shabbeta Zvi. Someone once showed me a Chasam Sofer and a Chidah which refer to this practice. But I couldn't find it. Meanwhile, I found Gilyon Maharshah (R' Shelomo Eiger), at the end of YD 181, says that kamah gedolei hamequbalim, talmidei haAri, who cut their beards with scissors. So, scissors is no my default assumption, which means they probably had some visible stuble, if not enough to qualify as a "beard". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 02:09:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> References: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> Message-ID: <19840673-e64a-c7e5-41b9-92f64dd10daf@zahav.net.il> Ikkar ha-din, someone who can't properly enunciate Hebrew letters isn't allowed to pray from the amud, never mind read the Torah or Haftorah. I don't know if there is a need to correct someone who consistently makes mistakes but there is certainly no reason to allow him to read at all if he can't do it properly. As an aside: one of my rabbis said that RYBS didn't correct someone in class who made mistakes reading the Gemara text but if someone made a mistake with a pasuk in the Gemara, then the Rav let him have it. Ben On 7/19/2017 12:31 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot > more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to > something like haftara than there is for Torah. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:11:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then > I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant. I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe "tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also. Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors, including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria Message-ID: RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing about the nature of the original obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 24 11:53:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah Message-ID: <20170724185345.GA20358@aishdas.org> In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61) discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads "leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving her a real gett. The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because "almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other misspellings that have only one possible intent. I was wondering if this is too fanciful: Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah" could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often given given in CE. Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could cross the readers mind. Maybe? Or too creative? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 06:47:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 12:40:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 08:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721@aishdas.org> One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 09:50:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:36:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:34:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:31:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:13:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 12:10:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:21:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:49:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> References: <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 23:38:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and historical. He brings parts of the midrashim about Avraham Avinu's early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for any other reason than to understand the historical facts. Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 26 July 2017 08:49 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Washing Clothes During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 2. The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 3. Menorah on Arch of Titus (Micha Berger via Avodah) 4. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 5. Showering During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 6. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 7. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 8. Re: alma vs. almah (elazar teitz via Avodah) 9. Re: alma vs. almah (Micha Berger via Avodah) 10. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 11. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/494286688/Ohr-Somayach-Logo-150sq_bigger.jpg] Showering During the Nine Days?! by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz tinyurl.com YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger , avodah The General Discussion Area for Avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"; format="flowed" On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , llevine at stevens.edu, Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 From: elazar teitz via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: elazar teitz , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:13:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? Message-ID: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:14:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: From "Religion Within Reason" by Steven Cahn: "To have faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . To describe someone as a person of faith suggests that the individual is strong-willed, fearless, and unwavering." Question to all - what percentage of the frum world have no doubts? How many don't think about it at all? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 05:11:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering during the Nine days In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: see: Is it permissible to shower during the Nine Days? http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/is-it-permissible-to-shower-during-nine.html [or -mi] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:09:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? I am in the middle of R' Mordechai Torczyner's (CC-ed, please include him in replies) shiurim on ribis. http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&category=0,234696 In particular, shiurim no.s 3-5 are about refunds. It's under 2 hrs total, and if you know something of the sugya, 1.25x speed is doable. The first lines of the source sheet to those shiurim is "Lamah yeish chiyuv lehachzir ribis?" http://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=529082 If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:17:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih but not a tikkun for the lav) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 19:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Torczyner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim >> was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. >> If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would >> be subject to maaser kesafim. ... > Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is > something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih > but not a tikkun for the lav) > KT Hi R' Joel, Indeed, the Ritva's view is that ribbis, once paid, belongs to the creditor. The creditor is obligated to pay it back, but the money is his for purposes including Kiddushin. Other applications include whether the borrower has the power to forgive the repayment, and whether the creditor's heirs have a duty to repay. Kol tuv, Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 10:19:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:19:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c1d64f4e4564ec7b59a1d187400d9bd@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." ============================== I'd appreciate specific examples ============================== Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== I finally tracked down a copy of the book and read through it-I?d simply say that one must underline heavily the statement ?the best of what was known to them in their time? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:09:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> I read Rachel Levmore's "Decentralizing Religious Authority" at Teaser: Overview Orthodox Jewish life used to be a simpler matter for those who wanted to lead one. There was an unspoken system in place. One could approach the local rabbi with a question. If he didn't know, scholars higher up in the "hierarchy" could weigh in until the question reached the "gadol hador." Despite the plurality of approaches which always existed, there was a definitive address whose opinion would be accepted by all (or almost all). Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone. The present circumstances, which have witnessed a breakdown of authority in general society coupled with the absence of an uncontested authoritative Torah scholar, has led to absurd situations. Lacking agreed-upon "gedolim" today, a void exists... Without any proper halakhic discourse between various rabbis who deem themselves to be leaders (even if they lack followers)... And so on, with a pretty sociological take on the problem, and how it applies to controversy over the halachic prenup. As is usual for me, I'm intrigued by the theoretical meta-issue. Given that we've entered an era that there is a dirth of gedolim whose rulings are followed across multiple communities and eidot, is there a significant change to how halakhah is done? And I'm not saying this is entirely about nisqatnu hadoros, and how today's gedolim aren't like those of my youth. Some of it is also the effects of universal education, google, social-media cynicism and echo chamber, and the social trends that cause the popularity of such social media, and other societal changes that made people less likely to respect authority that isn't fully in agreement with what they decided the truth should be. Returning to snipping from the article: The Internet is not the forum for halakhic rows. Rabbinic tradition prescribes that halakhic disputes be conducted in depth, not superficially through "virtual" statements in cyberspace. Proper procedure dictates that rabbinic forums be held where differences of opinions can be [19]discussed face to face. If that is not possible, then [20]scholarly books are written or [21]rabbinic articles published. Alarmist attempts to create fear among innocent lay-people cannot be considered credible halakhic writing. And: [I]t is not for naught that the Mishnah directs us to choose who is our rabbi: [24]aseh lekha rav. It is your responsibility as a God-fearing Jew to determine which rabbi you will follow, according to your perception of his righteousness, scholarship, and derekh--philosophy of Jewish life. For a variety of reasons, it should be a rabbi who lives in the same community as you, not least since he would then be familiar with the challenges and facts of your life. In the United States, the Rabbinical Council of America has assembled an impressive body of rabbinic figures... Visible links ... 19. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-plea-from-Jerusalem-to-the-worlds-Orthodox-rabbis-483210 20. https://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%94.html?id=FpsqQwAACAAJ 24. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en My first stab at answering my own question is to wonder how long halakhah has been centralized around a few globally known gedolim. >From the geonim until the late 19th century, were there any? And even when there was a few posqim the whole world turned to (eg the geonim), how many question did they go to the gedolim for? Wouldn't the size of the world back then mean that most questions were far more local, with the mara de'asra having much more of a final say, with consensus being more of a regional thing? If halachic authority is being decentralized, is that something new, or a reversion to the norm, to how non-Sanhedrin (or as the Rambam would have it, post-talmudic) halakhah supposed to work? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:19:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:32:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170728203214.GA6178@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:38:18AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and : historical... But not the fantastical ones. Zev and I are arguing over two things: 1- What that includes. Zev believes that the inclusion of miracles does not make a medrash fantastical. And in fact to believe so be apiqursus. (Actually, Zev said the believer would be an apiqoreis; but the question whether every believer in apiqursus is necessarily an apiqoreis is far afield. So I'll still to this less controversial subset of his claim.) I disagree. The Rambam associates nissim with nevu'ah. Someone who lacks the yedi'ah to get one isn't going to be around to witness the other. Therefore, aggadic stories of miracles placed after Tanakh are fantastical. While Hashem could still in principle perform nissim, the Rambam believes He wouldn't. (Even when the story is told of a member of chazal and their level of ruach haqodesh.) 2- Is there a default? Zev understands that the default is to take a medrash historically, unless it must be ruled out. Again, I disagree. Medrashim are described as metaphors and riddles. The story and its historical content just isn't an issue. You can't assume anything about a medrash being historical or ahistorical qua medrash. A good bit of history and a good tall tale can be used equally well for teaching by metaphor. Implying, you would need outside reason to assume one or the other. Which is how the Rambam then says that if the story doesn't fit how the world works physically, metaphysicall or theologically -- ie what that translation I googled up called "fantastic" -- insisting its historical when it can't be is silly. So: : Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are : other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could : attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Be happy, no one in this conversation does. In my understanding of Zev's view, the Rambam says that any medrash that isn't impossible (and nissim are possible) should be assumed to be historical. In my view, wondering about the historicity of the story misses the whole point of medrash. But if the story does not fit the way Hashem runs the universe -- which according to the Rambam would include miracle stories happening after Malakhi, and many of the stories before -- assume it is ahistorical. : early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at : the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for : any other reason than to understand the historical facts. The Rambam there has outside reason to believe that medrashic description; it fit what the Nabatean Agriculture implied abot the birth of their religion. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:00:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 05:00:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: True, especially in the MO/DL world. The site had an article a few months ago about how the MO/DL simply aren't looking for gedolim or they define the role of a gadol in way that strips him of much of this supposed authority. Ben On 7/28/2017 10:19 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 14:51:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From ?Religion Within Reason? by Steven Cahn: ?To have > faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes > beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . It depends on what he means by "putting aside" one's doubts. If "putting aside" means that one does have doubts, but denies this fact, and acts as if his faith was complete, this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and in general, A Bad Thing. It is comparable to one who feigns humility; the odds of an eventual implosion are too high. Rather, one must be honest about his doubts or questions, and work on resolving them. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:12:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Math behind kulan chayav Message-ID: <20170730031250.GA2671@aishdas.org> "Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince." Lachlan J. Gunn, et al. Proceedings of The Royal Society A. To be published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00900 Magazine article on said paper (H/T R/Dr Josh Backon): https://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html This paper focuses on the case of identifying a criminal in a police line-up, archeological evidence, and crypography testing, but I'll just use the first as an example. Sometimes a line-up is like picking out an apple out of a group of bananas. But usually, there is measurable probability of error. Whether it's 48% for a criminal who runs through the crime scene or the probability of mistaking one's kidnapper, there is always some probability of error. Now, what's the probability that no one makes that error? If 10 people unanimously identify the same person, is it more likely that no one made the rror, or that there is a systemic bias leading people to select the same member of the line-up? This paper shows the math (and has plots for various probabilities of error). It takes far fewer people than you'd think before a unanimous finding becomes suspicious. And the paper even cites the din as precedent: However, this is not necessarily the case and more confirmations can surprisingly disimprove our confidence that the defendant has been correctly identified as the perpetrator. This type of possibility was recognised intuitively in ancient times. Under ancient Jewish law [13], one could not be unanimously convicted of a capital crime -- it was held that the absence of even one dissenting opinion among the judges indicated that there must remain some form of undiscovered exculpatory evidence. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 07:48:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20). I am attending a Bris on Tisha B'Av. May I say "Mazal Tov" to the baby's father? If I meet a sick person on Tisha B'Av, may I wish him a "Refuah Shleimah" (a full recovery)? Are these also prohibited forms of greeting? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l rules that Mazal Tov for a recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B'Av since it is considered a blessing and not a greeting (Dirshu M.B. Beiurim and Musofim 554:63 citing Halichos Shlomo Bein HaMitzorim Vol. 15 Orchos Halacha 30). However, if at all possible, one should wait for a different day to express this Mazal Tov (Chut Sheini Vol. 2 p. 327). Our minhag is to perform a Bris on Tisha B'Av after the Kinos are completed, even if it is before Chatzos (mid-day), because of Zerizim makdimim l'Mitzvos, those who serve Hashem with alacrity, do mitzvos as quickly as possible (Mechaber, Rama 559:7 and Mishna Berurah ibid s.k. 26). Rav Shlomo Zalman was of the opinion that one can certainly say "Mazal Tov" at the Bris even before Chatzos (ibid). Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l however rules that the Mazal Tov for the Bris should only be said after Chatzos (Dirshu M.B. ibid citing Shmaitza D'Moshe p. 431). Although "Sholom Aleichim" should not be said to an Avel (one who is in mourning), the Gesher HaChaim (21:67:7) permits wishing "Refuah Shleima" to an Avel who is ill, since this is considered a blessing and not a greeting. For the same reason it is permitted on Tisha B'Av to wish a "Refuah Shleima" to a person who is ill (Dirshu M.B. ibid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 10:24:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:48pm GMT, Professor L. Levine quoted today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis: : Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" : "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend : is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20)... I'm going to use this to share the quick thought in my most recent blog post: The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. Tzom qal! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 11:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 31/07/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say > "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the > table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time that day is a fast rather than a yomtov. Though we still hold out hope that that was last year. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time : that day is a fast rather than a yomtov... That was obviously my intent. HOWEVER... We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent ge'ulah. So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust. After all, a commemoration of the ge'ulah after Galus Edom would be far more compelling. (I mentioned this to someone after Maariv, and he suggested that since neither July or August line up with our months that well, maybe it'll be Tish'ah beLeo. I don't think it has the same commemorative quality.) -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 03:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Menuchah Schwat via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. > So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it > Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust... Tisha baChamishi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 06:27:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 8/1/2017 6:01 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used to be a day of mourning?" Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 08:40:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:27:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: :> We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent :> ge'ulah. ... : Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which : is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha : B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used : to be a day of mourning?" What's that "um" about? The month names being Babylonian is a given sitting behind the sentence you quote. It's an often referred to Y-mi, RH 1:2 (vilna 6a) "De'amar R' Chanina: shemos chadashim alu beyadam miBavel." Then going on to mention some pre-Bavli month names found in Tanakh - Risanim, Bul, Ziv, showing how that all changes in Nechemia and Esther. Sure, when talking about 9 beAv the fast, we may well teach them we called it 9 beAv. But, as I suggested in the OP, maybe after the ge'ulah from Galus Edom, we'll do the same with the Julian / Gregorian month names. It will, after all, be a much more momentus ge'ulah, being final and lasting. If Anshei Keneses haGedolah thought it was appropriate to commemorate one ge'ulah in this manner, perhaps we should assume al achas kamah vekamah the end of our current galus would be commemorated similarly. On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:01:50PM +0300, Menuchah Schwat wrote: : Tisha baChamishi That's ambiguous. The chumash uses "bachodesh" to be clearer about which is the day count, and which is the month. Even if the month number is a cardinal ("-i" - fifTH) and the day is an ordinal (no suffix) the way you wrote them. You don't explain *why* you think we'd go back to the biblical system, rather than commemorating the ge'ulah from Galus Edom. After all, even the nevi'im didn't stick to the original numbered months. And I think my suggested parallel makes /some/ sense, if not necessarily what the Sanhedrin will end up deciding. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kinos: Hashem as Spaceman? In-Reply-To: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In Kinah #7 (Aholi Asher Ta'avta), the Kalir wrote "v'nihyeita ketas bechalal". To our ears this evokes images of loneliness and isolation, of someone surrounded by vacuum, light-years from anywhere and anyone, but what did "chalal" even mean to people with a Ptolemaic model (if that) of the universe? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:34:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 14:34:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av Message-ID: I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana ---------------------- I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it even is one), I think you are doing OK! -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 15:04:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <187d2f.769a1cbd.46b254d0@aol.com> From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah " >> There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. << Kol tuv, Ilana >>>>>> What you did instinctively was the right thing to do. Here is what Eliyahu Kitov says in _The Book of Our Heritage_: --quote-- It is prohibited to greet one's friend or acquaintance on Tisha B'Av, and it is even prohibited to say "Good morning." If, however, one is greeted, he should answer in a low tone, in order not to arouse resentment." --end quote-- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 21:51:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:51:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed Message-ID: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand that not everyone agrees with this position). Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can determine where the issur actually is? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 23:57:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB, quoting Rachel Levmore: > Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox > Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. > Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, > Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef were still alive and active. And if someone writes a similar article in another few decades, perhaps some of today's great poskim will have been added posthumously to the list... Not to be cynical, but could it be that one of the factors that makes a gadol universally recognized and accepted across Orthodoxy is that he is no longer among the living? Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 04:18:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:18:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed In-Reply-To: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> References: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 02/08/17 00:51, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har > Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess > information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can > certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand > that not everyone agrees with this position). > > Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur > karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can > determine where the issur actually is? *Any* case where we got new information. Take the classic case of two pieces of fat, one shuman and one chelev, but one doesn't know which is which, and then one later finds out. Before finding out both were assur; if one ate one of them beshogeg one brings an asham and the other piece remains assur. Once the new information is acquired the shuman becomes permitted, and if it transpired that one ate the chelev one must now bring a chatas. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 05:07:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from the OU: > The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra > Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as > greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" > (Mechaber 554:20). ... ... > > Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l rules that Mazal Tov for a > recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B?Av since it is > considered a blessing and not a greeting. ... ... I honestly don't understand the distinction that causes a "greeting" to be assur, while allowing a "blessing" to be mutar. I would think that "good morning" is a blessing. Aren't we praying that the other person's morning will be a good one? Perhaps the distinction is in the degree of kavana with which the "good morning" is given and received. After all, if it were said as a blessing, and received as one, then wouldn't we respond to the "good morning" with something like "amen"? Perhaps we can prove "good morning" to be a mere greeting, by pointing out that the response is usually a perfunctory repeat of the words "good morning", rather than anything serious. In this light, I confidently suggest that "How are you?" is definitely a greeting, because usually no one expects a response other than "okay" or "fine". What of the Mechaber's halacha of "Shalom Aleichem"? Surely we would agree that "Shalom Aleichem" is a blessing, no? After all, the response to "Shalom Aleichem" is "Aleichem Shalom", and I suspect (YMMV) that this is usually sincere rather than perfunctory. This brings us to the very core of this halacha: RSZA is drawing a line between greeting and blessing, and his halacha about Mazel Tov makes no sense (to me) unless "Shalom Aleichem" is defined as the prototypical *greeting*, and *not* a blessing. I can't imagine why this would be so, unless the Mechaber already felt that "Shalom Aleichem" was usually said perfunctorially. And that's sad. Can anyone offer a different analysis of these various phrases? Finally, it seems to me that "perfunctory" is a good summary of why we can bring American money into a bathroom, despite the words "In God We Trust" being on them: Those words have become a mere perfunctory slogan, and are no longer a real statement of faith. But if we have downgraded "Shalom Aleichem" from blessing to greeting with that same logic, then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? Do any other poskim make this distinction (either in Hilchos Tish'a B'av, or in Hilchos Aveilus, or for that matter in Hilchos What Not To Do Before Shacharis) between a greeting and a blessing? I'd love to see it defined more clearly. (There was a point in my life when if I'd sneeze and someone would say "God bless you", my response was "Amen". But I stopped that fairly quickly as people tended to find my response quite jarring. Maybe "God bless you" is also in the category of a perfunctory greeting that should not be done on Tish'a B'av?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 06:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170802132730.GB27820@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:57:08AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack : of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef : were still alive and active... In the US, recognition of R' Henkin and RMF were near-universal. And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. In Israel, I think the most recent candidates are pre-Shas ROY and RSZA. Although ROY's pesaqim are distinctly Sepharadi, I think it's commonly accepted that Yabia Omer is one of the few sefarim written in my lifetime people will be learning centuries from now. My mention of pre-Shas points to something I think is one of the causes. The search for "daas Torah" on political and societal matters makes enemies and cynics from among those who disagree. As for RSZA, RALichtenstein notes that he posessed a gedulah different in kind, not just degree [inevitable nisqatnu hadoros], than those we've looked up to since. I highly recommend "Im Da'at Ein, Manhigut Minayin?" . In it RAL defends da'as Torah as a doctrine, but questions if anyone since RSZA has been qualified to have it. To quote my own pitgam from past posts: A gadol is tall enough to see over our fences. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 09:05:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Eleazar Hakalir Message-ID: Yesterday during the fast, I was reading about R. Eleazar Hakalir, and was struck by the fact that historians aren't sure when he lived, with some saying he lived during Mishnaic times and others saying he lived as late as the 11th century. I realize that pinpointing dates during this time period is difficult, but a 900 year swing seems very unusual. Is anyone familiar with any recent papers or articles that attempts to zero in on the real date when this poet lived? Any additional info appreciated. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 18:25:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170803012513.GC16841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: :> I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, :> but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk :> hurting his feelings. : I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it : even is one), I think you are doing OK! I am wondering whether cheerfully (rather than pro-forma, yotzei-zain, replying so as not to offend) greeting someone in this situation despite 9 beAv is an instance of huterah or dekhuyah. (Thus overanalyzing your parenthetic remark.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 4 13:52:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: ?A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha *minyanim* questioned my saying "*y'yasheir kochacha*" to one of the *olim* (FWIW, I was the *bal qorei*) and, a few min.s later, brought to the *bimah* an Artscroll-*dinim* paragraph (from the back of its 9Av *siddur*) about not greeting someone; my response, as you might guess, was that "*y'yasheir* /*yeeshar kochacha*" was not a greeting. A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "*Shalom aleichem*", like M'gilas Rus' "*H' imachem* // *y'varechcha H'*", is also a blessing, but the "problem"? comes up when it's utilized as a greeting. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 5 23:33:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:33:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and fish blood? we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking liquid and almond milk? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within > their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 04:29:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <221F9E1E-C833-4DA1-83A2-577056D221BF@cox.net> R? Akiva wrote: ?.then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? I would say the reason is that Shalom is one of God?s Names. There was once a study done on people?s responses to ?How are you?? The respondent was supposed to answer in the negative. So instead of saying ?fine, thank you,? the response would be either ?terrible,? ?awful,? ?not good,? etc. and guess what? Something like 90% would not even have realized the negative response. In other words, it is very perfunctory when someone greets someone else in a normal setting. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 09:55:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table > and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher > but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. > What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and > fish blood? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? > we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table > at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond > milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking > liquid and almond milk? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring white milk looking liquid to the meaty dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? I suspect that in both cases, you are noting the explicit prohibition against doing these things and then you are presuming that these prohibitions apply *only* to these specific foods. Then, having made that presumption, you are asking why this distinction exists. I suggest that this is an improper procedure. It would be more correct to note the prohibition about these specific things, and then to *ASK* whether the prohibition also applies to similar things. You might find that the prohibition *does* extend to other things: Example #2: Soy milk. When pareve coffee creamers first became easily available, they were all soy-based. Yet the hashgachos warned us to serve it only in the original container, precisely because of the halacha you cite. Example #1: Suppose you have a lightly-cooked steak in your plate. Some "red blood looking liquid" is leaking out of the meat onto the plate, and is absorbed into the mashed potatoes. There's no issur against those potatoes. I'm pretty sure you can even mix it up into the potatoes deliberately, or dip your bread into it and eat it. But can you pour it out of the plate, into a glass and *drink* it? I don't know. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 13:44:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Lecture from Herzog Yemei Iyun Message-ID: <25bb89bf-b093-17da-6af7-7c80276a5d1a@zahav.net.il> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXeFDdchKY One of the lectures at this year's Yemei Iyun at Herzog: Rav Bazaq (Har Etzion) and Rav Kashtiel (Yeshivat Eli) explain a story in Nach (Isha HaShunamite) each in his way. In doing so, they try to demonstrate the differences in approach between what is called "Tanach b'Gova Einayim" and "HaKav". According to a story that I read about this lecture, this was the first time, after years and years of fighting (sometimes extremely fierce fighting) between proponents of each approach, that two people got together and gave a lesson together. There have been conferences where each side explains why their approach is good and the other side is wrong, but this is the first time that two people taught together. The lectures are in conversational Hebrew. Besides the demonstration of the different approaches, the lectures themselves about the story are fantastic. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 22:20:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:20:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom haAtzamut. Ben On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Micha Berger wrote: > >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. > > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? > > Akiva Miller \ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 07:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> References: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170807140514.GC15062@aishdas.org> : On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > R' Micha Berger wrote: : >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within : >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. : > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom : haAtzamut. I knew he was capable of it because I know several such stories. In the future, try to remember everything I wrote over all of Avodah's 19 years' history. It would save me time. I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning something that non-intuitive. Including when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 18:45:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:45:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with > the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning > something that non-intuitive. I was trying to come up with a snappy comeback, but the truth is that I simply have a rotten memory. Or, perhaps, the non-intuitive stuff is lost more easily, precisely because the anti-intuitiveness makes it more difficult for the brain to reconstruct the chain of links. We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. > when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. > RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if > it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." I wish I had been aware of these shades of gray when I was younger. Thank you for sharing. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 07:29:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:54PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is : how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is : the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult : to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical reasons given: 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish model.) 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the community. (The usual Chassidish model.) 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from DT in general when he left Agudah.) #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and not necessarily personal ones. Here we're talking about halakhah. So, I'd like to see if we can discuss the flipside of the discussion. Rather than asking about the heteronomy of following gedolei haposqim and why today's posqim seem to be failing getting that kind of fealty from certain large segments of the masses, what about the autonomy end? We have a very literate masses. More people can hit the primary sources themselves. And for those who can't, oir lack the patience to, there are more secondary and tertiary sources available in laaz than ever before. Joys of computerized publishing, which has made producing a book cheaper than ever. In this world, how much autonomy should a sho'el assume for himself? Which questions don't need asking? I presume a wide variety of opinion; I am more interested in various rationales than in any particular answer. What about the LOR -- do you have thoughts about when he should field the question, and when he should punt to his own rav or to a gadol? And does the ease at which anyone can be reached anywhere on the globe matter? Universal education, telecom, the web's ability to provide instand "research" are all bottom-up reasons our authority is being decentralized. With little to do on those elegable to assume that authority vs those of the past. Although the ease of LH and motzi sheim ra about those rabbanim with today's tech does enter into it to, r"l. If no one can become a navi in his childhood neighborhood, today's world makes it harder and harder to leave that effect. My own feeling is that anyone of East European ancestry who was not higi'ah lehora'ah who faces a new (for them) situation and doesn't get a sense of consensus from the Chayei Adam, Qitzur, MB and AhS should be asking a she'eilah. Notice that shows my own bias against popularist guides. Unless said guide was written by or recommended by one's poseiq as a viable resource. And in terms of autonomy vs heteronomy, I would be seeking a poseiq who (1) convinces me of the soundness of his reasoning; and (2) is willing to work with my givens on things like hashkafah and beliefs about metzi'us, where there are no rules of pesaq. As in RMF's pesaq about Hallel on YhA. (Tangent: Notice that there is little connection between pesaq and hashkafah on this one. RYBS, the Zionist, adhered to a meta-halakhah in which the barriers to saying Hallel are high, and came out against. As a compromise for LORs whose mispallelim won't tolerate that, he would advise the rav to pasqen that they omit the berakhah. Whereas RMF told Zionists that leshitasam, it would be appropriate to say Hellal WITH a berakhah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 08:45:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Kashrus of Braekel Message-ID: <20170808154508.GA12433@aishdas.org> They're now importing to EY from Europe a new breed of chicken, the braekel. See http://www.baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=37&ARTICLE_ID=90778 ... Members of the Eida Charedis' Vaad Shechita, prominent rabbonim and kashrus experts gathered in the home of Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita to determine if a new chicken, imported from Europe, has a kosher status. The discussion lasted for four hours! The new bird is called Braekel, and according to HaGaon HaRav Sternbuch, the bird is not kosher. However, in Bnei Brak, HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita has ruled it is kosher. The chicken was raised in Europe in an area void of Jews and Rav Sternbuch feels it lacks the `mesora' required. Wikipedia reports that it is indeed Gallus gallus domesticus, actual chicken in scientific taxonomy. And The Brakel is not cultivated for its meat, but merely for its egg-laying qualities. The breed is capable of producing 180 to 200 white eggs a year. This isn't remotely like the leghorn, a breed of chicken that has 2 "thumbs" and 2 other toes per claw, rather than the usual for kosher birds -- 1 "thumb" and 3. And it's accepted as kosher, in fact, the source of most of our eggs here in the states. But the breakel has normal simanim. For that matter, according to some pesaqim about why we can eat turkey (the context in which the kashrus of leghorn chickens most often comes up) we even accept Meleagris gallopavo, turkey, as being within the mesorah for chickens and they aren't even in the same genus! Third wiki-note, commenting on the two subtypes of braekel chicken that have since interbread into one: In the UK, USA and Australia, however, one can still find descendants of the Kempische Brakel under its old name 'Campine'. The Campine has evolved differently from the Brakel. The most noticeable difference is the hen-feathering of the rooster and the lower weight. We in the US are treating a bird that evolved (nishtanah hateva, if you prefer) from the breakel as kosher; no one requires checking if an egg is campine or not. It's not even like the mesorah has been silent; even if each breed of G. gallus domesticus needs it's own mesorah. So, lo zakhisi lehavin RMS's reluctance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 09:27:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> References: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <69647634-1f0b-8686-3b9b-f1fe2958ab37@sero.name> On 08/08/17 10:29, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning > to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical > reasons given: > > 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and > ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish > model.) > > 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the > community. (The usual Chassidish model.) > > 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would > ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to > Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the > current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and > doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, > and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from > DT in general when he left Agudah.) > > #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and > not necessarily personal ones. #4 All true knowledge is in the Torah, and finding it is a matter of making non-obvious connections. Therefore someone who has absorbed enough of it to do so can find the correct answer to anything, though he may not be able to explain how he did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 12:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hebrew manuscripts Message-ID: A database of ancient Hebrew manuscripts is now available at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLIS/en/ManuScript/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 18:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel Message-ID: . This past October (in Avodah 34:130) I mentioned a practice that I've seen growing in recent years, that of making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. I was learning about the issur of eating a large seudah on Erev Shabbos, and I came across something that seems very relevant to that practice. Form the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod Hashabbos" writes: "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 21:21:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:21:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142a02db-9198-65c3-9f5d-1b882fc5f525@sero.name> On 08/08/17 21:24, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of > appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, > making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." However, "to`ameha chayim zachu". Tasting a little of the Shabbos dishes, as opposed to gorging oneself on them, is very much kevod Shabbos, to increase the anticipation, like a sneak preview. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 11:58:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the : reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with : which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod : Hashabbos" writes: : "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of : appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, : making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." These motives have a nadka mina. If one fills up Fri afternoon on food they don't enjoy (perhaps it's healthful) or wouldn't eat in a formal or celebratory setting, one is running afoul of the SA's sevara, but not the PM's. In contrast, having significant amounts of Shabbos-appropriate food but not to the point of ruining one's appetite by the time maariv is over would be a problem according to the PM, but not the SA's sevara. Zev mentioned the case of tasting Shabbos food. The MB 250:2 uses the word "lit'om". The Machzor Vitri cites a lost Y-mi and invokes "to'ameha chaim zakhu" -- I think it's specifically te'imah. As in, less than a kezayis, no berakhah, not really eating. (Which is why I wrote last paragraph about "significant amounts".) It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. BUT.... The whole point of chulent is to have hot food in Shabbos lunch, to fulfill the obligation (SA OC 271:3) of making it the more special meal. (Rather than Fri night dinner. See Shaarei Teshuvah #1.) The AhS says one is not obligated to abstain from special Shabbos-lunch foods Fri night. But I'm talking about Thu night, altogether before Shabbos. O Seems to me that until someone finds a new "special Shabbos lunch food", Thu night chulent ought to be prohibited! Whereas one SHOULD just taste the chulent on Fri, and it is permitted (but sub-optimal) to have some with Fri night dinner. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 22:14:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:14:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Not just yeshiva guys. It has become a minor trendy thing for all sort of people to travel to Bnei Braq to get chulent. On 8/9/2017 8:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". > My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and > Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment > near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 04:43:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (=?utf-8?B?157XoNeV15fXlCDXqdeR15g=?= via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: The Mishna Brura clearly states that the reason for tasting on erev shabbat is "kedei letaken". This refers to tasting during the cooking process and does not fit with the whole kugel minhag. Menucha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 11:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] publishing trends Message-ID: I'd love to hear any analysis (or guesses) as to what are the percentages of different types of sefarim (both Hebrew and English) being published in the current era, how they differ from those in the past and, most interestingly to me, what are the drivers for these trends? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 15:37:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:37:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Milk, Blood and look alikes Message-ID: I fear that the Halachic posture of *Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to?* although making sense from a narrow perspective, actually invites Halachic disaster, and is quite incorrect. Halacha asserts all is permitted unless it is prohibited. Here is an example in which the Shach seems to assert that Maris Ayin is limited to its narrow description and is not to be expanded according to what makes sense to us. BP, those that have been found within a Shechted cow, require Shechita once they have walked about. Before they have walked about they do not require Shechita. However, Ben PeKuAh can also be created via natural breeding which goes on forever. So we can have a large herd of BP none of which are identifiable as BP. The Mechaber Paskens without qualifying, *until they have walked about* - that the naturally born BP all require Shechita. This would appear to suggest that they require Shechita even before they have walked about. And there is good reason to understand this to be the Halacha, after all in this herd there is absolutely no way to identify them as BP whereas those found in a Shechted mother are readily identified as being BP. And I presume that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, the Shach makes it clear that the decree that requires that they be Shechted applies only after they have walked about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 11 07:15:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Summer and Travel Videos Message-ID: <1502460917652.98832@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y8drmxm3 Kosher Summer and Travel Videos As you prepare to fire up the grill for the summer or hit the road on vacation, countless Kashrut issues arise: Can I cook on a public grill in a park? Can I use a hotel room microwave? How should one pray on an airplane? These commonly asked questions and many more will be answered in our 2017 Kosher summer and travel series. Your esteemed guide through this halachic journey? It's none other than Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of OU Kosher. View the questions and answers below! Can you cook on a BBQ that has previously been used for Non-Kosher meat? Can meat and fish be cooked on the same BBQ? Can you eat cut fruit from an uncertified vendor? Can you buy coffee from a non-kosher establishment or a kiosk? May you purchase salad from an uncertified entity when traveling on the road? What products am I permitted to eat from an ice cream store? What are the Halachos in regards to prayer on an airplane? What are the Kashrut issues with airline meals? Can in-room hotel microwaves be used without kashering? Is it permissible to take antihistamines or other medication without certification? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 13 06:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] piskei rid Message-ID: <591d6b28af34484fac75d4f2918958a9@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The bar ilan database notes that its version is from Yad Ha-Rav Herzog. Does anyone have a copy that can see who authored the footnotes? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 02:06:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 07:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken Message-ID: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. See the above URL for more. See also http://tinyurl.com/yckl2bqj YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 08:23:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From > http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h > Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that > he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. Since when is rabbi M any sort if authority in The USA? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 11:28:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:28:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> This whole thing reminds me of the one-a-generation broohaha over leghorn chickens. Leghorns and braekels are chickens, much the way chihuahuas are dogs, despire being rather unique looking dogs -- or chickens. Like other chickens, they are Gallus gallus domesticus. Not even a remote question of problems interbreeding. Every 20 years or so someone notices that the leghorn chicken has two "thumbs" pointing back, and two toes pointing forward, rather than the usual 3-and-1 we expect for kosher birds. And yet, white leghorns make beautifully white eggs, and so it is the breed most American chicken eggs come from. Actually, both it and the braekel chicken do indeed grab the perch in a 2-and-2 grip, once comfortably on it, they go to the 3-and-1 of the rest of the species. And like the leghorn chicken, the braekel chicken is a source of eggs in the US. However, not under the name "braekel". But America's campine chicken, which has the same kind of foot, was breed from the Kempishe Breakel. The question was resolved quite a while ago, which is why we in the US don't have to chase down which breed of chicken an egg came from. So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was raised, we were about to assur, and then it was found that in much of the world zebu was already being eaten as cow. And in fact, MOST tefillin made from gasos are zebu leather! The breakel, which is a normal enough part of the general chicken gene pool to get the usual taxonomical name -- Gallus gallus domesticus. But there are two subspecies of cow: those without a hump between their shoulder are Bos taurus taurus. Those that have such a hump, eg zebu, are Bos taurus indicus. But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can interbreed and produce fertile young, in which case how did any of these questions get started? The mesorah for chickens must therefore include oddballs of the min like leghorn, braekel and campine breeds, and that for cows must include the full min, both subspecies. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 13:42:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <692953b1-38ed-f530-7beb-1656bdc7942d@sero.name> On 14/08/17 14:28, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was > raised, we were about to assur, Very few were about to asser, because the view that a mesorah is needed for mammals is very much a daas yochid. > But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can > interbreed and produce fertile young This is true for mammals, not necessarily for birds. I'd put a different argument: Let's suppose that it *is* a new min, for which no mesorah can exist because it didn't exist until relatively recently. For that very reason we can be 100% certain that it isn't one of the 24 listed species, and therefore doesn't need a mesorah. And if it's *not* a new min then it's a chicken, and once again kosher (except according to Anan ben David y"sh). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 06:36:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:36:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn't this an issue, since they are using less than a revi'is (approximately 3.3 oz. - minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber's question) A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi'is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi'is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi'is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m'lo lugmav (half a revi'is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 14:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170815214945.GA13601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including :> the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha :> follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a :> shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow :> their minhag. Regardless of the shei'ur, so this is perhaps tangential.... The AhS talks about the difficulty in obtaining real wine, the kashrus of "wine" from soaked raisins, and thus the schnapps option. I wonder if so many rabbeim would have insisted on making qiddush on schnapps at all if wine were an affordable option where they lived. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 15:24:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: . R' Ben Waxman asked: > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot > right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the > members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset > on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the > right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine > no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose > money? My first thought is that this is a great example of a question that should be addressed to the rav of the beit knesset. There are so many factors that need to be weighed against each other, such as how badly the shul needs the money, and how many hurt feelings will be created by giving the wrong answer. As regards the comment "a sale is a sale" -- I'm not so sure. Sounds like a "davar shelo ba laolam" to me. Especially since we are considering the real possibility that a kohen guest might show up, rendering the auction questionable. Just my two grush. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 02:54:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Use of Stone Keilim During Bayis Sheini Message-ID: <20170816095450.GA3826@aishdas.org> See http://www.timesofisrael.com/2000-year-old-stone-workshop-discovered-near-where-jesus-turned-water-into-wine or http://j.mp/2v1gxan The Times of Israel By Amanda Borschel-Dan August 10, 2017, 11:51 am 2,000-year-old stone workshop discovered near where Jesus turned water into Only four Second Temple stoneware production centers have been unearthed in Israel Because it was immune to ritual impurity, the use of stoneware was rife among Jews during the Roman era ... A large 2,000-year-old Second Temple period chalkstone quarry and workshop was discovered at Reina in lower Galilee by a team of archaeologists headed by Dr. Yonatan Adler... A manmade chalkstone quarry cave was recently discovered between between Nazareth and the village of Kana. What is unique in this excavation is the additional find of a stoneware workshop -- one of only four in Israel. Although pottery was also in use during this period, archaeological digs around the region point to an uptick in stoneware during the Second Temple period -- likely for ritual purity reasons, as attested in the Talmud. "In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee also used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone," said Adler. ... "According to ancient Jewish ritual law, vessels made of pottery are easily made impure and must be broken. Stone, on the other hand, was thought to be a material which can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce some of their everyday tableware from stone," he said. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 04:45:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:45:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh Message-ID: . At first, I was going to pose these nitpicky questions on our Mesorah list. But then I found some answers, and I decided to share my journey with the whole chevra. If it doesn't put you to sleep from boredom, please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Shmos 1:10 - Paro starts panicking over the Jewish Problem. First, they're multiplying, and then, "ki sikrena milchama..." 1. What is the root of Sikrena? Kuf resh aleph, or kuf resh heh? 2a. If it is kuf resh heh - "if war happens" - then what is the aleph for? Is this a kri/ksiv situation? Does anyone explicitly refer to it as a kri/ksiv? 2b. If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? Why does every single translation and peirush render it as "if war occurs", or similar? Or do you know of any exceptions that I couldn't find? 3. What form is this word? My guess is that it is Kal, future, 3rd person feminine plural: "They(f) will...". That fits well with "proclaim", if "they(f)" refers to the attacking nations. But if the root is kuf resh heh, I don't know why the plural would be used. Is "milchama" some sort of plural or collective noun? Other relevant information: RSR Hirsch says that "sikrena" is a plural form, and therefore "milchama" is probably not the subject but the object. for the word's meaning, he refers us to Yeshaya 41:22, where this same word occurs. But as I see it, these words are not spelled the same: Where Shemos spells it with an aleph, Yeshaya has a yud. (I suppose Rav Hirsch considers this difference insignificant, but I'm not knowledgable enough to understand why.) I did find one lone voice who says that the root of "sikrena" is "read/call" and not "happen/occur". Namely, Mandelkern's Concordance. Yeshaya 41:22 appears on 1047d, in the root kuf-resh-heh. But he places our pasuk, Shemos 1:10, on 1043c, in the root kuf-resh-aleph. Another data point from Mandelkern: His opinion is that "sikrena" in Shemos 1:10 is a third-person plural verb. This is different from the second-person plural verb, which is spelled exactly the same, and appears in Rus 1:20 and 1:21, and in the Concordance on 1042a. I suspect that Mandelkern would endorse "*they* will proclaim war" as a correct translation. Finally, I tried a non-Jewish website devoted to translation issues. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7122.htm is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, and other similar sources. I probably could have gotten the same information from Mandelkern, but seeing their English translation on-screen made these examples jump out at me: Bereshis 42:4 - [Yaakov] said, "Lest disaster *happen* [to Binyamin]." Bereshis 49:1 - Yaakov said, "... I will tell you what will *happen* to you at the end of days." Vayikra 10:19 - Aharon told Moshe, "... such has *happened* to me..." Devarim 22:6 - When you *happen* upon a bird's nest... In all of the above, the Torah's word is spelled with a kuf-resh-ALEPH root. I find myself forced to concede that there is strong evidence (dare I call it "proof"?) that in addition to the usual meanings "read" and "call", kuf-resh-aleph can also mean "happen". Having said that, I was tempted to take this even farther. That page on BibleHub brings a lot examples where they translate kuf-resh-aleph as "meet". At first glance, I did not take it seriously; I felt that our common translation as "call" was more appropriate. For example, Shemos 5:3. where Moshe and Aharon tell Paro, "The God of the Hebrews nikra to us, so let us go for three days..." In my mind, this meant "Hashem called to us", and I rejected BibleHub's translation of "... has met with us." But then I read ("happened upon"? pun intended!) ArtScroll's translation, which is "...happened upon us." I was surprised by this, but I was even more surprised when I saw RSR Hirsch on this pasuk, where he tells us to look at Shemos 3:18, where he shows that these two roots (kuf resh aleph and kuf resh heh) are indeed similar. And so I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to translate Shemos 1:10 as "when a war happens". Does all this teach us anything about the small aleph in Vayikra 1:1? I leave that as an exercize for the reader. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 10:41:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish > or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? I don't think "proclaiming war" is something that can even happen in Hebrew. One can call *for* war, but the lamed is necessary. I can't think of any direct examples right now, but consider the parallel "vekarasa eleha leshalom". On the other hand we do have "ukrasem deror". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:25:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected cohen guest is the only option. If it is the aliyah itself which is sold then the cohen should be able to claim the shul had no right to sell it, and the choshen mishpat shailah is whether the shul or the buyer takes the loss. Obviously just my opinion not meant to second guess the mara d'atra. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? > > If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? > > If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:34:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:18 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I wonder if everyone agrees with the Machstzis Hashekel, i.e., would everyone agree that if you hold like the Taz the you can make kiddush on it? I was startled by the conclusion until I realized that "their minhag" refers to their own minhag, the the minhag of the Rebbes mentioned in the previous sentence. Still odd though, surely this is a psak halacha not a minhag. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn?t this an issue, since they are using less than a revi?is (approximately 3.3 oz. ? minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber?s question) > A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi?is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi?is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. > > Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi?is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m?lo lugmav (half a revi?is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. > > Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 15:22:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502922161954.91323@stevens.edu> Please see the article sent to me by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky that I have posted at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 04:55:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate Message-ID: A work around for agunot wanting to have kids: Rav Yitzhaq Yosef* ruled that an IVF child isn't a mamzer in a case of a married woman having her egg fertilized with the sperm of a man who who isn't her husband. Now an MK wants to use this psak to enable agunot to conceive via IVF and her kids won't have mamzerut problems (and have the treatment paid for by the state). * Yes other rabbis have given this ruling but when the Chief Rabbi gives a psak it gives a stronger basis for a knesset member to propose a law. See the article for more details (Hebrew): http://bit.ly/2uOmI6x I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A single woman is allowed to get IVF. Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 09:27:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170818162719.GF5755@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:25:19PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen : in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is : the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected : cohen guest is the only option... While I agree with that conclusion, the answer to your opening question was in RBW's post: :> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right :> after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are :> kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning... They sold the aliyah on the presumption that, as usual. And in fact, this "chazaqah" is so solid, RBS asked this eventually as a hypothetical; the wording he thought of was "were ... to come" not "when ... does come". Perhaps there was originally an al-tenai that simply people no longer remember. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:46:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818174604.GH5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:52:59PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha : minyanim questioned my saying "y'yasheir kochacha" to one of the olim ... : A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) : dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "Shalom aleichem", like M'gilas Rus' "H' : imachem // y'varechcha H'", is also a blessing, but the "problem" comes : up when it's utilized as a greeting. My rule: If said as a social pleasantry, or as a mindless playback of a recording your parents / society taught you, it's a greeting. But if you care more about whether the RBSO heard you than the person you're saying it about, it's a berakhah. And usually it's somewhere between those poles. With a skew toward the greeing end. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:02:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:02:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A : single woman is allowed to get IVF. I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei mi shelo nivra". But... This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless worse than never existing at all? (I adapted that line from arguments about aborting a fetus that tests positive for Downs. How many people with Downs hate their life so much that they regret existing?) : Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Marriage as described in Bereishis 1, perhaps. "Peru urevu umil'u es ha'aetz". But the intimacy of Bereishis 2 is not adressed "... al kein ya'azov ish es aviv ve'es imo, vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu lebasar echad". My version of "the talk" with my boys started with these two pesuqim. Explaining that relations are to serve these two functions. And also, while birth control can address one of these two, extramarital relations outside of "vedavaq be'isho" translate into exercises in weakening that bond, that gift HQBH gave us. (Adding now, as this bit would go over their heads: to approximate Adam Qadmon as humanity is described before Adam and Chavah are made from one into two.) And then, after establishing theological context, the talk continued on the usual biological and psychological planes. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 11:27:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses in Judaism Message-ID: R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/ He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American Eclipse of 2017: Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 14:10:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: . On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients. I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. > ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient > with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the > well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov > yisroel", just like many people today. And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then what did they do wrong? The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good description of it, I'd appreciate it.) The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food that even went by another name. And the very first time that they asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained. In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product. Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I wrote here 15 years ago: (http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03) > Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free > breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored > liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I > understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that > assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that > one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff, > and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap > orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice, > isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 11:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:29:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> References: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <529972d5-f946-74d5-e97e-26fbf8cbced3@starways.net> On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural > : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any > : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a > : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A > : single woman is allowed to get IVF. > > I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei > mi shelo nivra". But... I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view. > This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless > worse than never existing at all? Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 17:30:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:30:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, Cheilev and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. Is this correct? Can anyone offer some illumination? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 21:43:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4577e69b-191e-24b3-90cc-757555b83cd6@sero.name> On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... > Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I > don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at their lodgings. Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream? A grocery. >> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient >> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the >> well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov >> yisroel", just like many people today. > And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then > what did they do wrong? This is precisely the AhS's point. He strongly rejects the view of those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens when one does so. > > The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are > "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". > (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good > description of it, I'd appreciate it.) It's schmant in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet cream for coffee. Cf smetana, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour cream is zoyer shmetene. > The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to > what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food technology made everything complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel. (This is why the term "cholov stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used. RMF rejects the idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils its requirements.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 07:17:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: ' R' Zev Sero wrote: > No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type > of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in > Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least > one could before modern food technology made everything > complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to > *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, > etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. Summary: I concede. Longer version: I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as a resident of the 5700s. I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned about such things. I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the, there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly, there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them. There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in 1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the drivers for this change. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 12:04:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:04:07 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: <201708201904.v7KJ47OS022554@hsdm.com> >And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") . From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 22:11:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 01:11:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. > So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, > Cheilev > and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly > think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev. I don't know whether deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something that is identical to chelev so there is no question. (The difference may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone will think it's chelev? Obviously we don't worry about that because an observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to that conclusion?) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 08:37:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk Message-ID: . Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, but we don't hold like him. In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking, eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di" come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds. Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a - <<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds, who don't have mother's milk. >>> Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says it's d'rabanan. We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav", WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di" would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we learn from the word "imo"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 06:32:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse Message-ID: <1503322352892.87303@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 15:09:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis Message-ID: . Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads: > Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so > which bracha should be said? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for > which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the > acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and > great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. > It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. > Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe- > inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? > > Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and > Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh > Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which > are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states > that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's > sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many > commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. > As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses > are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. > > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of anyone else who comments on this question? Thanks! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 16:06:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses : > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah : > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). : : Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of : anyone else who comments on this question? The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses. The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human sin. Wholesale, not retail. The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer to the question in his words. The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who continue ignoring such signs. In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence". At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who aren't religiously moved by it. Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally used language of Wisdom and Intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 17:07:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> References: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b@sero.name> > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer > to the question in his words. That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's servant, the moon. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 04:11:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? Message-ID: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Something doesn?t add up. Every 28 years around April 8th, we recite the birkat hachama (last time, April 8th 2009, next time, April 8th 20037). Every month we recite the blessing over the moon. And as I learned, the ?oseh ma?aseh b?reshis? is over lightening but not over thunder and volcanoes. For thunder and volcanoes I thought we say ?shekocho g?vuroso malei olam.? Regarding an eclipse as an incredible and awe inspiring event, so is being in the presence of a child being born or in the presence of a person having being declared dead, resuscitated back to life. Is there a b?rocho for that? > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 07:16:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170822141651.LBEF22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> I heard a very interesting shiur at yutorah. Everything below was mentioned, plus one other thing: a great explanation of a gemara (or another Chazal) that says something like: "X" comes into the world (X might have been eclipses, or, if not, something related in some way) with four reasons: - not appropriately euglogizing an av beis din - (I can't remember) - homosexuality - the death of two brothers at once (or in battle) (He started the connection my explaining the ma'aseh of the moon's complaint against H' at creation . . . ) Here's the problem with my post: - I got to it via the "featured shiruim" on my YUTorah phone app -- and it's not there now. I went to the desktop site, and I can't seem to find it - I don't remember who it was (except that the rav who gave it over had a middle or eastern European accent) (My excuse: I went to western South Carolina to see the eclipse. The 8 hour drive home turned into almost 13 hours because of traffic, and I drove alone. I heard a lot of shiurim and my mind is pretty fuzzy . . . ) FWIW, -- Sholom At 05:40 AM 8/22/2017, via Avodah wrote: >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 >From: Zev Sero via Avodah >To: Avodah >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis >Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b at sero.name> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't > see an answer > > to the question in his words. > >That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points >out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that >eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or >moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means >that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens >is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or >mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, >even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise >and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when >Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. > >This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural >phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but >Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind >Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. > >This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry >at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them >and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't >they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it >removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun >is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's >servant, the moon. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 17:47:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:47:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness Message-ID: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> There was a discussion on Areivim about a particular person who was accused of committing a particularly evil crime. Someone posted, among other comments, ?I will add that the "rabbi" who committed these horrific acts is objectively G-dless. Apikores is too mild a term for him.? My response to this fits more for Avodah than Areivim: I know this man and most of the other players in this story. And while I haven?t interviewed him recently to test R?n TK?s assertion, it is my opinion that as reprehensible as these events are, it doesn?t mean that the person who committed them is Godless. Is any sinner Godless? More likely, a sinner like this carries around a huge measure of denial and/or conflict. But that doesn?t make him or her Godless. The Gemara says, in fact, that some sinners ? during the moment they?re sinning(!) are close to Hashem (Berachos 63a). I?ll elaborate: In truth, the argument can be made that any time a person sins he or she is Godless. Tomer Devorah in the first perek makes the contrapositive point ? that Shuras HaDin would dictate that Hashem remove himself from a person at the time of his sin, resulting in the sinner?s instant death. His response to that is that Hashem?s mercy is what keeps the person alive ? Hashem does not remove himself from the person, and keeps sustaining him or her even while he or she is sinning with the very power invested by Hashem in them that enables them to sin. But probably most times well-meaning people sin, their sin comes from one of the following three: ignorance, negligence, or lust. Ignorance: Not knowing or remembering something is forbidden. Negligence: Not caring enough to take care not to inadvertently sin. Lust: Being blinded to the evil that one is doing because of the strong desire to benefit from it. In all those cases, the person who is sinning is not thinking about Hashem. He?s ? in your terms ? ?objectively Godless.? But can he really be called that? Let?s talk about two extremes: The person who walks in front of another person who is saying Shemoneh Esrei (relatively minor), vs. the person who is not shomer negiah (relatively major). In both those cases it?s not that the person is not thinking about Hashem (which he admittedly is not), but that the person is not thinking about sin. Or, more succinctly, the person is just not thinking. Not Godless, but thought-less. And that can sum up all of the three categories ? ignorance, negligence, and lust cause people to sin by not thinking. So what happens when a person is a thinker? There are two possibilities. The person can be like Nimrod, "???? ????? ??????? ????? ??" ? he knows Hashem and doesn?t listen to him, although he recognized Hashem?s existence. That?s a plain old Rasha. But he?s not Godless ? ???? ?????. The second possibility is that that person does think about Hashem. He does think about his actions. He does know how bad it is what he?s doing. In other areas, not his weakness, he does keep to Hashem?s will. He is ???? ????? but he?s not ?????? ????? ??. Such a person, I think, is incredibly conflicted. He knows about Hashem and he?s rebelling against him on the one hand, while trying to obey him on the other. That person might be evil, might be scum of the earth, but he?s not Godless. On the contrary. And although we have to condemn such a person and his horrible actions, and we don?t envy his punishment in the World to Come, we might also be a little jealous of his relationship with Hashem. This may well be the reason the Gemara tells us that a person who says Lashon Hara about a talmid chacham falls in Gehennom, since the talmid chacham definitely did Teshuvah (Berachos 19a). How do we know he definitely did teshuvah? Because a talmid chacham, by definition, is a thinker. He didn?t indulge in non-thinking ? that?s not in his nature. And even if he had a moment of weakness and did something wrong, he certainly rebounded and regretted it the next day. (Contrast the talmid chacham with the non-thinker of before ? he just continues blissfully on with his life not realizing or caring that he sinned. That?s why we are not required to presume that he did Teshuvah.) A Godless person, properly defined, is one who denies Hashem?s existence completely. We have no basis, in this case or in many others, to assert that those are the circumstances we?re dealing with. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 23:43:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 06:43:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? On the topic Kvct Joel Rich Sent from my iPhone THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 21:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:06 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: It seems we agree that there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you are, eating what looks for all intents and purposes, to be Cheilev Yet Chazal were not Gozer to prohibit this due to Maris Ayin. Is the physical difference between Cheilev and Shuman more than the difference between fish blood and animal blood? Would there be no confusion between red coloured liquids, like wine and animal blood? There is no MA on Ben PeKuAh that is salvaged as a non-fully-gestated, no matter how long it lives and no matter how much it looks smells tastes and feels like an ordinary beast. Why is that so? Proposing that - IT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO CHEILEV SO THERE IS NO QUESTION - seems a little fantastic And indeed we should ask - why don't we worry that onlookers will think that beef Shuman is Cheilev? Is it OBVIOUS that there is no reason to suspect it is Cheilev, so why jump to that conclusion? I do not think so. I suspect that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies is as a product similar to the prohibited product. Perhaps like the position that Min BeMino is determined by name not by taste, Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 04:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Since when? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 07:09:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> References: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170823140919.GB32207@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:28AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: :> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat : Since when? Tangent: One of my pet peeves about Brisker derekh is how "chalos sheim" often is just begging the question. X needs a P, or else it doesn't really have the chalos sheim X. It's an empty statement, just saying that P is needed because the category needs P. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:13:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:13:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tax Evasion and Esrog purchasing In-Reply-To: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> References: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170825191326.GA15871@aishdas.org> Back in Sep 2014 Every year I mention the problem of buying an esrog from someone who > offers a better price if you pay in cash. Last year I was able to shift > from "li nir'eh it's a problem". RHSchachter reports that according to > RJBSoloveitchik, helping the seller evade taxes in this way is lifnei iver > (deOraisa, not "just" the derabbanan of mesayeia) and THE ESROG IS PASUL. They just put R' Asher Weiss's teshuvah on this subject up at : Tvunah in English Question: I recently went to a store and was told if a pay in cash then i would not need to pay taxes. If it is obvious that by me paying in taxes the store owner would not pay the proper tax on this sale to the government, am I allowed to do such a purchase or there is a problem of [lifnei iveir lo sisein mikhshol]. Answer: This would not seem to be the actual prohibition of Lifnei Iver as cash payment is inherently permissible and he can and may still pay taxes. There are a number of reasons a person would prefer cash payments, aside from tax evasion. At the same time, with regards to taxes we should generally assume Dina Demalchusa Dina and not encourage or promote tax evasion. It would seem RAW agrees on the halakhah, but disagrees that you should be chosheish that the preference for cash is due to tax evasion. Although in the first sentence the sho'el says the salesman told him so outright!? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:29:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:29:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Eilu va'Eilu Message-ID: <20170825192948.GA17720@aishdas.org> Because how can I /not/ share something on eilu va'eilu? -micha ----- Forwarded message from torahweb at torahweb.org ----- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:31:45 -0400 From: torahweb at torahweb.org Subject: updates to Rav Schachter's dvar Torah To: weeklydt at torahweb.org TorahWeb EILU V'EILU Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim -- both opinions are the words of the Living G-d." although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she'ha'Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She'b'al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah. The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether -- according to their perspective -- the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim." This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions imply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v'eilu. Even when we do apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" it does not mean that halacha l'ma'aseh one has the right to follow either opinion. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v'eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, "Beis Shamai b'makom Beis Hille eina Mishna", i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don't even consider the views of Beis Shamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d'hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b'chutz la'aretzm, even when dealing with a d'oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l'hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l'ma'aseh. (See my sefer, B'Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.) Likewise the poskim assume that when you have a shitah y'chida'ah, a lone opinion among poskim not shared by others, this view also does not constitute a slight safeik. The Beis Shmuel (Shulchan Aruch, Even HoEzer siman 90, s'if kattan 6) thinks that even if the Rambam agrees with the Ri Migash on an position not agreed upon by other poskim, this view should be totally ignored, since the Rambam was so taken by the genius of the Ri Migash (his father's rebbe), and would naturally be inclined to accept his opinion without even thinking twice (even though in several instances the Rambam does reject his opinion), this psak would be considered a shitah y'chida'ah and should be totally ignored. It was recently reported that a certain "beis din" permitted a married woman to remarry without a get, because it was ascertained that her husband was not Sabbath observant at the time he married her, and the halacha considers one who is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia to be like a non-Jew. And, they reasoned, we all know that if a non-Jew marries a Jewish woman the marriage does not take effect. This ruling is absolutely scandalous. First of all, the consensus of recent poskim has been that the concept of mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia doesn't apply today since so many Jews are not shomer Shabbos and the term "b'farhesia" has the connotation that this individual is breaking the discipline in the community (Chazon Ish and Binyan Tzion.) The members of this "beis din" would most certainly have been the first to say that such a Jew would not cause wine he touched to become prohibited because he is not considered to be like a non-Jew. More importantly, the view that a Jew who is treated as a non-Jew because he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia can't effectively marry a Jewish woman is totally ignored, because it is against an explicit gemara (Yevamos 47b) that states that even if a Jew converts to another religion and marries a Jewish woman the marriage does in fact take effect. We can't apply the concept of eilu v'eilu to this view; it is simply incorrect. Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v'eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v'eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does notmean that it has ramifications halacha l'ma'aseh. There are rules and regulations regarding psak halacha; this discipline is not hefker (is not a free for all.) The parsha tells us that the halachic positions of the Beis Din Hagadol are binding on all Jews. The Sanhedrin was a group of Torah scholars who were clearly head and shoulders above all of their contemporaries. They were the gedolei hador (the Torah giants of their generation), and the gedolei hador have the status of rabo muvhak for their entire generation, even for those who never even met them (see Tosafos on Berachos 31b and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 244:10.) The halachic positions of one's rebbe muvhak are binding on him, and the halachic views of the gedolei hador (who are clearly head and shoulders above the other Torah scholars of their generation) may not be ignored. None of the members of the aforementioned "beis din" are recognized by anyone as belonging to the category of gedolei hador, and even if it had been a case where we would apply eilu v'eilu, since the gedolei hador have unanimously rejected it for generations, no one today who is not in the category of gedolei hador has the right to go against this rejection! Rabbinic leaders throughout the generations are always concerned with the plight of agunos, but coming up with non-halachic solutions is not the Orthodox way. The Talmud Yerushalmi seems to hold that the concept of pikuach nefesh doesn't only apply when one's life is in danger, but also if one's life will be made extremely miserable this too falls under the category of pikuach nefesh, which allows one to violate Torah laws. The Yerushalmi (quoted by Rav Yosef Engle in Teshuvas Aguna) says that we would have allowed every agunah to violate the prohibition of adultery if not for the fact that we are dealing with gilui arayos (forbidden marriages) where the halacha does not permit one to violate the mitzvah even in a case of literal pikuach nefesh -- even to save one's life. The aforementioned "beis din" is doing a disservice to the Orthodox Jewish community at large, and specifically to these poor agunos, by misleading them with absolutely scandalously fallacious piskei halacha. Let the public beware! One must be of the caliber of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski in his generation or Rav Moshe Feinstein in the past generation in order to determine in a given case if the halacha permits a woman to get remarried without a get. POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the aforementioned "beis din", also see important letter from Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz regarding the "International Beit Din" . Copyright (c) 2017 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 09:42:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Poem For Elul Message-ID: <20170827164248.GA14698@aishdas.org> Saw on Facebook and wanted to share. I am not sure if R Bin Goldman intended the title to be "a poem for elul" (sic) and the first line read (in Hebrew, my transliteration) "Lekha Amar Libi" or if he wrote a poem titled "Lekha Amar Libi, which he introduced as a poem for Elul. I am presenting it as if the latter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Lekha Amar Libi [R'] Bin Goldman My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:18:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach Message-ID: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)? If not, where is its force grounded? Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own law as long as it doesn?t contradict the seven? Who would be eligible to be on a Bnai Noach court and how much interpretive independence would they have? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:19:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Moshe and aharon Message-ID: <846178C1-4E50-4DC0-9C2B-7D9B22F0E745@sibson.com> Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b ) two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to debate] Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse Kt Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 18:53:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:10 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... Message-ID: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin presented in an earlier message. The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product. Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting - please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when? Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera, see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its - Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues] R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. Would you please explain how and/or why? = = = = = = Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are 3 issues that require clarification: 1. Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protests? Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: 1. Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. 2. Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:34:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8326ab8f-6f6d-4868-0fd3-9a28f508abd0@sero.name> On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. > Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the important) distinction. I don't know how similar they look on the surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with different names even in English. > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Once again, I object. Who says so? > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be > performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to > the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 07:20:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828142031.GA10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin : presented in an earlier message. : The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis. As in: : R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the : application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. : Would you please explain how and/or why? This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an observer. See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur, not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half of the label on the "almond milk". But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat? Tangent: : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk... WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats and the milk were cooked together. As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar. After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to wait to eat. The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's. (My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?) Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs. But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked them together? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:06:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (MorrisIsaacson via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog Message-ID: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) Thank you, Moshe Isaacson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:20:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the : sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk : that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that : milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us : that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would : have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would : have been protected from those other ingredients... This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out something else... According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is that of kosher species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of the milking. Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched by a Yisrael. Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly, neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy more than chazal's taqanah. For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's ruling exempting powdered milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent > adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still > applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched > by a Yisrael. > > Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 10:52:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa : lechumra. Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines right above your comment. (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about without the gezeira. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:52:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828155218.GC10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote: : Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated : with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't resplond when you asked on another forum.) Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid. The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and Tzefaniah 2:14. But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol to it. The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll", because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French. Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would share that metaphor. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. > > : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash > : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa > : lechumra. > Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal > visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing > "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. > So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines > right above your comment. He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah. And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5fe6203e-5ca3-2df7-9dc4-ab23193ca9e8@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF > held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus > inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping kashrus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:18:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:18:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have : done. I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:50:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7a7271fd-d51c-6efc-2eb8-8d88dc02bf52@sero.name> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose > : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need > : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have > : done. > > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further supervision is needed. I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care about reshus. What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his employees or guests. The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours from the bottle into his cup. And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. So what makes it CY? This can be further split into two scenarios: (1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision. It was CY lim'hadrin from the moment of milking until this nochri bought it. But now it isn't. (2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at one point it was already in reshus yisroel. In other words, there was more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from the bottle. Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus nochri? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 15:07:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? In-Reply-To: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> References: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170828220709.GH31841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the : bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') : is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, : an eclipse is not included in this list... The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of an eclipse is for others, not Jews. BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah? Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said? I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im (mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see Creation in it but can't. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 13:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828202847.GG31841@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature : calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow : and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as : Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. ... : But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar : and non-Tzon, this non-animal? : Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence : my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You went over my head. I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73. So what are you asking? ... : Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, : the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even : if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur : will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and CAN be chal on it. As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type fatty deposits? Where this question is coming from: My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of a chayah is permissible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 17:25:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:25:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances Message-ID: Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis. He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined by the names we use to identify things. But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as far as I can tell, has not been addressed. Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the facts of the Halacha. I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by. We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino, is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste? Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop - stop trying to force the round peg. I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined. = = = = = Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked with milk from the Pesikta he quotes. Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, it must still be Halachically coherent. Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats. - - - - - Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained why there is no MA to cook these with dairy. He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different names even in English. Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are. Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi. Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim, take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is explaining. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:10:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:10:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? Message-ID: The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The answer is Yes and also No There is an Issur to eat Neveila but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat - RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2 Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah. Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by the Gemara, Chullin 58a. A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar, a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo. After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before being incubated] from unfertilised eggs. Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif]. Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it. What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision must be made, which is ZVZGo. BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa. Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher chickens when they hatch. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 16:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh Message-ID: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds." Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 19:54:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which conclusions may be drawn. > Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when > HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until > they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection > and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was permitted to them. But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 05:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it (and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead) However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers. They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish. Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container with CS. How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)? (they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 08:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ab46d6f-e25f-3389-5dea-28aabefa26c1@sero.name> On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they > are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were > growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the > eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] Then why not say the same of the hen's meat? It too was mostly grown before it became a tereifah! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 12:52:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh In-Reply-To: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> References: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170829195223.GA27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, : assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? : Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as : Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in : Hebrew. TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error tragic; I wonder if it's common. I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers: Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds... until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud. Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad. The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados". The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 13:32:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170829203231.GB27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold : that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the : status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan : according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their : keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the : absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all : kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his : descendants! Not to mention all benei Racheil. Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before we were true Benei Yisrael. Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a "nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah. Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other. Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as an issur chamur. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 30 12:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:48:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments Message-ID: A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933: As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . (Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues) We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address. It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure way of life that would bring us to God's light. The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps. Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split. A couple of notes: 1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause. 2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other personal sin), he had this in mind. 3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely within the Clal doing the sin. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 06:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 07:44:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it > sounds like "original sin." YL And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:35:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170831233516.GB22179@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me :> it sounds like "original sin." YL : : Did you think only Xians beleived : in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our : view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the : guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"... The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach. Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos, all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin. Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 12:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America Message-ID: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus see there for more background: On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land... On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein... REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US. Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6: Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them, they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness, not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished, as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia. Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain, without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with our very eyes ... This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel] was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150 years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather, that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times. (Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America being a "medinah shel chessed.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:43:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have several comments. The OU writes: > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > the home for Shabbos. Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs of the home." In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting the lights is part of that! The OU continues: > The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. > Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to > sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama), > women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to > me it sounds like "original sin." I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I think that's all the Tur is saying. It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive from the same event. Finally, the OU writes: > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > the wicks will easily catch fire. It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be *more* difficult to light later on. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 18:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:57:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh Message-ID: NEVEILAH Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the prohibition to eat Neveilah It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2 However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah. I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by Halacha so why is it Assur to eat it? MARIS AYIN The following are universally accepted 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha and even Minhag 2] AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta] 3] AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA? I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal. and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats, even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA. The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah - Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not. Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has no direct Halachic component to it Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a reflection of Halacha. Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden. Please provide some sources. As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is also predicated upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim. As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish? ISSUR BBCh I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor - only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook. The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out - the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:06:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:06:02 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a little bit will do] That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However, for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen. The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:00:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb'al peh Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression > that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may > disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no > one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within > the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from > Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions > made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that > seem problematic to our minds." > > Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, > assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not > so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies > as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent > in Hebrew. I could respond in any of several ways. Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial. I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash, until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that Nach is also included.) Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural sources, and with hardly any logical arguments. Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin: What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his stereotypes about mishnayos.) This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion, and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our practice is XYZ. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 22:23:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? Ben On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system > of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to > see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or > murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow > one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and > speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 06:49:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org>, <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. Kvct Joel rich > On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? > > Ben > >> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system >> of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to >> see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or >> murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow >> one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and >> speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkampgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:45:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based ideology. But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses. I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate, interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need. So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:58:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ > Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas > haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's > because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something. Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive, and they recognized this. The implications for today are self-evident. As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the Zionists actively fought against religious practice. -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:11:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote: : That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I : don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:19:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:19:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict so many murderers. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:27:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901152729.GI31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so : that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power : and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, : false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why : we continue to remember Amalek. R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8) RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can can pass as soon as we stop being a threat. Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as chinam. So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah. This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on what they did, and not let it Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't, why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred we feel once we realize they hate us back. The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how to address sin'as chinam. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:27:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only > superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any > other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't > mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it > became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly > damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:08:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:08:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias" and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell "Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote: : As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign : names? As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations. The use of : aleph and ayin always makes things interesting. The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE 126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them. It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.) My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud. There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef; patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud. On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued: :> The very point I was trying to make is that yes, : I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an : English word into Hebrew. : If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1 : spelling. Especially for more complicated names. As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)... There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others. I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself. The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide English sounds among the established transliterations. "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the "j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and an English "ch". The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or "Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's where I could see debate. Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only said by some who know her? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:59:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4318c19f-0790-10f1-6bab-106d72e8dd9b@sero.name> On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/ thing for the "j". The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi teshuvot discuss it. IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it was spelt gimel yud. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:34:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:34:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The role of gematria, and remez in general In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <488600f7-ef1c-3adb-b551-f3c00f739ff9@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170901163421.GC28962@aishdas.org> >From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria itself reached Avodah topicality. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim: > True. But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li > pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see > how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that. > R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other > opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not > one of them methods used to darshan Torah. And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:" : Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves : use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah... What is the role of Remez? We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh -- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.) Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat in the pasuq. And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod". But remez? What's it for? It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f004425-548e-142a-90de-48c5e91769b8@sero.name> On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. [Email #2] On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:24:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901172407.GB14196@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means : they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which would either mean: 1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency. Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't try to fix what you can? 2- They felt they were insufficient in skill. Or a third or fourth possibility. I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death. Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment. And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9, the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death. He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then. R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin" which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time getting permission to execute someone than they did. But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi wrong. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:52:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote: > > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > > the home for Shabbos. > >Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. >The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was >"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a >level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why >this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, >because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs >of the home." > >In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting >the lights is part of that! Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) >Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be >in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do >something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I >think that's all the Tur is saying. You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness, >Finally, the OU writes: > > > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > > the wicks will easily catch fire. > >It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully >understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain >piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and >difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a >charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. >In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be >counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be >*more* difficult to light later on. Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:32:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:32:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412cee4b-73a8-f3ae-bd8f-d8051cb68646@sero.name> On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually > oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:03:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, from Jewish breakaway groups). Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). Another (lesser known one): the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha. (IIRC, the S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.) My question is this: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and something comparable in secular life. Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from some other group/idealogy? (E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of it's Nazi association. But I'm looking for a better and more relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't a common design anyway)). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:07:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we : are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some : sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and : something comparable in secular life. Something so direct, it's not even an analogy. Jewish: Yichud. Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the opposite gender. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:17:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> >The following are universally accepted >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all >Halacha and even Minhag Is this the case? According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm , the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos). He also mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613. (As they each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) ) So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? (In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or so. So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did the general opinion change? Or did it?) -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 02:39:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:39:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath Message-ID: Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel during their Shabbath? Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, text (SMS) or WhatsApp? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 12:09:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality.? So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 03:38:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 06:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . I wrote: > In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then > lighting the lights is part of that! and R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of > homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? > ... > Given that roles today are much different than they were in > the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles > should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I > am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive. I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For example, if non-family are present, some might consider this non-tzniyus. But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other. > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which > are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights > with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is > no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem > with Shabbos neiros? As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that does not apply to Chanukah. My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 04:08:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: . R' Sholom Simon asked: > Can anybody think of a secular (ideally, American) law or > common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish > ourselves from some other group/idealogy? R' Micha Berger's response of yichud is a great example of where secular society has grasped the importance of gezeros which help protect us from ourselves. Similarly, secular society understands the concept of Mar'is Ayin and Chashad, and they express this in the term "Appearance of impropriety". (There's even a short Wikipedia page with that title.) But I don't think either of these is what RSS was asking for. He wants examples where the purpose is specifically: > in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, > from Jewish breakaway groups). > > Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos > (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). The answer that first came to my mind is that the original American colonists adopted various practices to distinguish themselves from their European origins. I'm sure there were others, but the main one that comes to my mind is the spelling differences between British and American English. For example, the Wikipedia article "Comparison of American and British English" says: "One particular contribution towards formalizing these differences came from Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionary (published 1828) with the intention of showing that people in the United States spoke a different dialect from Britain, much like a regional accent." Akiva Miller PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, where we are uneqivocally supposed to do it one way, but the other way is grudgingly acceptable after the fact. (Speeding limits are *not* a good example of this. The policeman will probably not stop you for going slightly over the limit, but he certainly could. That would be a Chetzi Shiur at most - a clear violation, even if not a punishable one.) If anyone has good examples, please start a new thread. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 06:07 PM 9/1/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >Jewish: Yichud. >Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy >about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the >opposite gender. Thanks -- but I'm looking more for something that is intended to separate us (us "regular Americans" -- whatever that is) from a people or nation or ideology that we find distasteful. An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). I'm looking for a law or practice that *separates/distinguishes" (havdil) - your example is more like a "fence." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest example I can think of is not secular. Mennonite (including Amish) men shave their moustaches to express their rejection of all things military, because when their customs were formed soldiers wore moustaches. > PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that > is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, There's the principle "de mimimis non curat lex", but that's more like chatzi shiur, which civil law considers mutar lechatchila. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:15:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <657b8edc-97f8-5fa2-45c9-7efe94200b60@sero.name> On 02/09/17 05:39, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel > during their Shabbath? > > Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, > text (SMS) or WhatsApp? If you know they won't break shabbos to read it, or at least you don't know they will break shabbos to read it, then I don't see a problem. "Ee ata metzuveh al shevisas keilim". It's not shabbos for you; it is shabbos for the remote instrument that you are manipulating, but that is not a problem. The same would apply to operating a waldo that's in a place where it's shabbos; it's shevisas keilim, which BH says is not a thing. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:28:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: <12a7adb9-e48c-7af7-3fb2-7ee96c2a3799@sero.name> On 02/09/17 15:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue > here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a > reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and > Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but > it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand > that we live in this reality. But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:51:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:51:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (1:4) writes: "When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel ... They would come to the Beis Din at the entrance to the Azara. If they knew [the din] they would tell them, if not everyone went into the Beis Din and asked. ... If the matter was not clear to the Beis Din they would discuss the issue until all agreed or they they would take a vote and follow the majority and tell the petitioners this is the halacha" The Rambam is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 88 which states the following: "At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Beis Din Hagadol. The Beis Din Hagadol was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah). If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide. After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai)." There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the Tannaim, the Gemara in fact related that they left their place in the Lishkas ha'Gazis 40 years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. If so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol in existence? 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:23:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: , <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: From: Sholom Simon Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:17 PM > The following are universally accepted > 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha > and even Minhag > Is this the case? ... > So... what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone > accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? As in many things, the Rambam seems not to have been noticed. This is distressing, because the Rambam tries to present things according to halokho, not according to medrash. As he says in his introduction to the Tenth Pereq of Sanhedrin in Perush haMishnayot, medrash is almost never to be taken literally, but rather comes to teach us things (but says that most Jews don't understand that). For halakhic purposes, the Rambam explains in Hil. M'lakhim 9:1, that Adam haRishon observed 6 things that he was commanded. One was added after the Mabbul, so yielding 7 mitzvos that Noah and his descendents were commanded to observe. Avraham Avinu was also commanded concerning Milah, and he took upon himself the obligation to daven Shacharit. Yitzchak added another two, and Ya'aqov another two. When rabbis say that Avraham observed all 613 Mitvot, it is obviously not meant literally: many, many of the 613 only came into force after King Shlomo built the BhM. Before that, there were a whole set of other mitzvot (such as that the Kohanim and only the Kohanim wereto take apart and assemble the Mishkan, and that the L'viyim and only the L'viyim were to carry the parts of the Mishkan). These were commandments from HQBH, but not part of the set of 613. When the BhM was built, those mitzvot disappeared and new mitzvot, which are part of the 613 count, came into effect. So before that no one "observed" the 613. And some of the 613 are only applicable to Kohanim, and some only to L'viyim, and some only to Yisra'elim, so there was no person ever who observed or could observe all 613 mitzvot. So when we say nowadays that Jews are commanded to observe 613 mitzvot it does not mean that any person is commanded to observe all 613; it means that there exist 613 mitzvot. Every Jew is commanded to learn all 613, however. So it is possible that the Avot learned all 613. But most of them were not technically mitzvot then, because they were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and before that no one was commanded to do them. So what does the Torah mean when it says that Avraham observed "mishmarti, mitzvotai,chuqqotai v'torotai" (sic, not "toratei) in Chapter 26? The same thing that it means in 18:19 "for I know him, that he will command his children and his house after him to obeserve the way of the Lord." There is no question that Avraham Avinu was ALSO commanded to observe what Chazal include in the term "Derekh Eretz" and the Rambam explicates in Hil. De'ot Pereq 6, which included such basic things as proper behavior and middot (and one of the main goals of the Aishdas organization, and nowadays is called "mussar"). Chazal say that all of those things have to come before Torah, i.e. before learning rest of the Torah. And, as Micha the founder of Aishdas can tell you better than anyone, there are so many, many things that one has to learn and focus on to observe these most basic of the commandments. So Avraham would have had his hands full teaching people those. Did he also learn all the mitzvot that would be given later? He was a novi, and so perhaps could, but one cannot say that he "observed" them in the literal sense, because how could one "observe" a law that had not yet been instituted and was not even applicable? Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 17:39:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when : American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. : (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their national ethnicity. I think this topic has become non-PC. Nationalism is even a dirty word in some circles; viewed as faschism, or fascism-lite. You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without running afoul of rules about discussing politics? But I hope that at least relating the two topics will provide something to think about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 10:58:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel > and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the > Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din > Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority and passed their 18 gezeros. The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the period of the zugos. Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 12:44:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:44:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > >> 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel >> and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the >> Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din >> Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. >> > > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority > and passed their 18 gezeros. That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. > The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. > Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the > period of the zugos. Yes that is exactly the question. Why didn't they resolve all of the Machlokes in the Mishnayos. > Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the > other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. Wouldn't that violate the issur of lo tasuguru mipnei ish? > > > -- > Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, > zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 18:14:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7333f45e-37cb-8ad0-ca8f-bffbb68048f8@gmail.com> Sun, 3 Sep 2017 Marty Bluke asked: > ...The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the > Tannaim... > so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence > there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students > had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol > in existence? > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and > Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? > Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for > most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. By '''in existence,'' the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The English-language Jewish history books that have been published over the past few decades follow this model. I have also done so in ''The Dynamics of Dispute,'' (Judaica Press) Chapter 10, ''The Control and Proliferation of Machlokess, Keeping the Torah One.'' Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 01:59:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:59:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:01:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> On 05/09/17 04:59, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both > David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never > attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females must be killed as well. Your question of how Agag's descendants, conceived the night before he was killed, managed to become so numerous so quickly applies here too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:17:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? Message-ID: According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. However, others disagree. Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/yblaj8cu If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:49:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:49:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it > into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? > Greek changed a lot over the centuries. I'm not sure if it even existed as a language at the time of Joshua, and the Greek alphabet was certainly much later. If Greek was the one of the languages the Torah was translated into then it would probably have been unrecognizable in the Hellenistic period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 09:17:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> On 05/09/17 11:17, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate > it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? 1. Ptolemy, not Alexander. 2. 72 sages, not 70. 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) exist today? 4. Even if the writing did still exist, would whatever passed for Greek in 1271 BCE have been intelligible in 271 BCE? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:36:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:36:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/5/2017 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. > However, others disagree. ... > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 > languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages > to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek > translation? Well, for one thing, it was Ptolemy, rather than Alexander. But for another, maybe it wasn't necessary. Perhaps if they'd simply asked for the authoritative Greek translation, they'd have gotten it, and any number of distortions of the Torah caused by the Septuagint wouldn't have happened. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:20:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> References: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170905182040.GB2253@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:17:10PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the : writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure : to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) : exist today? Rishonim on Yehoshua also argue how many such monuments there were. For example Rashi (at least as explained in Gur Aryeih) has three copies: one in the Yaedrin, one on the mizbeiach on Har Eivel (which is named in Devarim) and one at Gilgal. AND there is a machloqes tanna'im (Sotah 35b) about how they were written. But I think both shitos hold they were engraced. R' Shimon says that the stones were plastered, and then the words were engraved into the plaster. R' Yehudah held the stones were engraved, and then plastered on top of them. R' Yehudah's position sounds like it's describing more permanent writing, but how would you get to see it? You would not only need to peel off the plaster, the plaster could well get into the engraved letters. To address the original question: Ezra haSofer used majority to produce the mesoretic text, leaving us with a sefer that didn't match any of the copies found. Why didn't he check the Hebrew copy/ies from the monunemnt(s)? Wouldn't a text engraved by people who met MRAH be more authoritative than any of them? (All this assuming, as is the post I'm replying to, that they contained the whole Torah. That is the shitah we're trying to understand, no?) So it would seem to me that just as we have no idea how to find this monument / these monuments, even if the writing is still legible, they were already unavailable in Ezra's day. Unsurprising, given how much more pragmatic and used knowledge was lost. And even if they did know where to find it, either the writing wore off the plaster, or perhaps the plaster was too embedded after all those centuries to be picked off to read the stone. Regardless of the shift in Greek, the stones weren't even usable when the target was the original Hebrew. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170905184626.GC2253@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:17:58PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >The following are universally accepted : >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all : >Halacha and even Minhag : : Is this the case? In a footnote to one of his father-in-law's maamarim, RMMS (the LR), writes that this is meant that they did so "beruchnius, velo begashmius": Some mitzvos they "only" fulfilled the point of the mitzvah without physically doing the mitzvah. E.g. tefillin, with its mention of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. Others, they did perform the mitzvah physically, but still they only did so to accomplish the ruchnius -- it was only incidentally physical, and only sometimes in the same form. See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31608&st=&pgnum=137 For example (not given there), the Zohar links Yaaqov's spotted sticks and changing the coats of sheep to the mitzvah of tefillin. But the sticks didn't become qadosh, because uplifting and redeeming the gashmi wasn't part of the plan. There is more in Liqutei Sichos on Lekh Lekha www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/68627/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Lech-Lecha.htm Given RMMS's relationship to shitas Rashi, and our stereotype that chassidus tends to take maximalist positions, I thought this position would be somewhat interesting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 13:30:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:30:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> Message-ID: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females > must be killed as well. How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what the mitzvah and the dinim were? Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently no one informed him. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 20:43:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 05/09/17 16:30, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females >> must be killed as well. > > How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what > the mitzvah and the dinim were? They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 07:45:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:43:20PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe : taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of : "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in : front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never : knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so : angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. BB 21b. I think he concluded said rebbe (Yoav) did it as intentional ziyuf, not an error. R Mordechai Breuer concludes that the semichut (i.e. the "X of Y" form of the word for X) for "zakhar" could follow a variant conjugation and come out "zekher". And while it's hard to picture confusing "z'khar" and "zeikher", "zekher" and "zeikher" is much easier. The "zekher" vs "zeikher" debate over what the Gra had for Parashas Zakhor was over which means the Gra's intent was to tell us the word means "reminder / memorial" rather than "memory". The mesorah is "zeikher". But if zekher could mean both "males of" and "memory of", the mistake is VERY easy. (Not that RMB would worry about the possibility of the Gra disagreeing with the mesoretic niqud.) But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? It's strange. In our culture, it would be the "hot topic" of study for the weeks leading into the war... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 11:48:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > error. No. Why would he do that? The Rishonim discuss whether the rebbe himself didn't know the correct pronunciation, or whether he knew it and therefore taught it corrrectly, but didn't pay enough attention to how each boy was pronouncing it, so never noticed that young Yoav had misheard him and was reading "z'char". > But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 15:51:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an : >error. : No. Why would he do that? A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't get clarification /before/ the war? And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most of the animals? Actually, if you figure the remaining animals were for qorbanos, he was planning on all them being killed. A random reenactment of Yericho? Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 19:12:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> On 06/09/17 18:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > : >error. > > : No. Why would he do that? > > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. I don't understand why you keep bringing David up. What does he have to do with this story? The story is about Yoav, not David. And I repeat my question, why would Yoav's rebbe intentionally corrupt the pasuk? Why would Yoav even suspect him of it? > :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? > > : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. So how does that make Yoav a gadol? > And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? Why would it even occur to him that Yoav had such a misunderstanding? > And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most > of the animals? Do you mean Shaul? Perhaps Yoav didn't know the details of what had happened all those years ago. In fact how many people ever knew about Shmuel's rebuke of Shaul? It may have been secret by the king's order, and not spoken about, so Yoav may never even have heard of it. > Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when > it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Again, Yoav thought he had it right. He didn't even know that there was anything he needed to ask. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 00:02:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi@opengemara.org via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3FF2B345-8199-48FC-A3BD-6A89FC2540F9@opengemara.org> On September 6, 2017 3:51pm PDT, Micha Berger wrote: ... > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. .. >: Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? The Gemara (Bava Basra 21b) says that the issue was "???? ???? ????? ?' ???? [arur oseh melekhes H' remiyah -mb]" -- that the teacher should be more attentive (also, it fits into the Sugya there -- that a teacher who is medayek is better than one who's fast). Also, there's a machlokes in Sanhedrin if Yoav was a good person who made mistakes or if he was evil but found Dovid Hamelech to strong. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 09:45:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:45:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: R' Martin Bluke asked: > 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says > hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash > states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night > and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. > > However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought > Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if > Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David > and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to > wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out Amalek. First the data: * The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters. * The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh * As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's Pelishti stronghold. * Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a problem. So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul. Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans, but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert. So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them, because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites, Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself. Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command. Ad kaan. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 11:15:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Practices of the Tochacha" Message-ID: Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well written and very interesting. http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 12:54:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170907195348.KNNX30763.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: >: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when >: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. >: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). > >Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have >recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken >to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their >national ethnicity. . . . > >You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without >running afoul of rules about discussing politics? Perhaps. Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable with respect to Americans and the American Revolution! Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 14:24:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170907212448.GC15354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? : http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation: All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 15:38:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170907223856.GD15354@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" : d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its : mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? : : Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, : but we don't hold like him. Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4. It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20. ... : We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from : Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus : seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's : significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, : suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later (you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted the gezeira. Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely. : So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev, not so much. I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo" was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo" rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get that conclusion from "sevasheil". And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim lemiqra. But it crashed down. Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 23:55:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> Message-ID: Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks with him the rest of life. Ben On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there > was anything he needed to ask. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 11:55:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 13:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:06:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote: : I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw : it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather : than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," : just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. R Mordechai Breuer On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote: : How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him : what the mitzvah and the dinim were? : Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous : mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know : that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently : no one informed him. And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav was strongly deferential to David. Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the questions as to why. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 14:02:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything > about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a > unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav > was strongly deferential to David. I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. Suppose you're a caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which includes liver. You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, and I agree. You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 9 19:13:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur Message-ID: RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh [but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein Issur Chal Al Issur. So how is it that RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 03:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: > By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' > Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources > that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol > could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and > Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam says? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:18:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to function normally. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:43:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:43:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the > time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to > function normally. And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way. The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin was not functioning normally. [Email #2. -micha] One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 07:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91da4a07-6dcd-bc04-b9e0-38326532931d@sero.name> On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod to both sides. (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 10:02:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : While there may have : been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, : why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam : says? Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin, when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin. (Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.) So, what happened? My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed resolution by higher courts. IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 15:32:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45eac523-5fc8-1a2c-0c9a-256d54c2e054@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700), when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704, while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate, and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards. There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows Beis Hillel. Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become the standard one. All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 20:42:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> Message-ID: <6c5042b2-7703-92b5-e001-b2e5bc111010@zahav.net.il> In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these issues when instructing the soldiers? Ben On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 01:20:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the > one on smicha What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. [Email #2] On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different > conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed > resolution by higher courts. > > IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. > > To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of > valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 06:23:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha" > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. No, they weren't. BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they started in the very last years before it, when things were far from normal functioning. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170911151131.GF24527@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? : Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis : Sheini. But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis. I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a "veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule. The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer. Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq, for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al devarav, for even these greats weren't. So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the best answer to your question. And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to the late amoraim? Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why (leshitas haRambam) the question was still around? : On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. :> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of :> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? : The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white : approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim : "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything : in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying : that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini. (Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's just projecting.) There is a difference between 1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah saying it means the last two are in reversed order; and 2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this idea would be kosher. The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin. And yet, multiple norms would co-exist. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the destruction of Bayit Sheni. Lisa On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis > Sheini. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 07:13:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories Message-ID: <20170911141302.GB24527@aishdas.org> Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav in a different direction. I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the "q" in "Amaleiq".) : I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported : wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher : Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where : we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history. : Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint : in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious : revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of : anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where : the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in : order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal : add a story that isn't needed. : Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or : pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some : of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising, : but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read : historically, I wonder. I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.) Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened" the criteria for such categorization? If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories that defy how the world works. (And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who accept miracles.) In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures. Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid. IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh and av deis din derelict in his duty? The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because they're only ahistoric. I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from within the midrashic-story system. So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..." While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise" far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:54:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty. Rabbi Akiva lived at the > time of the Bar Kochva revolt. R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later. The > vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the > destruction of Bayit Sheni. While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 17:20:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, > Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was > Nasi in Yavneh)" And how many of those feature in any machlokos? Hillel & Shammai had only three, beside the long-running one on smicha. > These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel & Shammai do. Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to dispute? > Hillel and Shammai were certainly > well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their > students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo ra'u". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 18:19:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:19:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 07:02:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? Message-ID: <1505224922640.65779@stevens.edu> Please see the video at http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb produced by the Harabonim of Queens YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 20:16:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:16:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? In-Reply-To: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe > the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were > gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". > Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of > machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the > teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the > lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on! As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one). Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF. * HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim, 1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130 concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora. (All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 08:49:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? Message-ID: <1505317742192.42683@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40) writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until thirteen and a half minutes after sunset. The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 11:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (hankman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:11:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Message-ID: R. Zvi Lampel wrote: ?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help?? CM responds: Yup, I imagine that would be the concordance in his head! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 06:28:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= Message-ID: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 08:54:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:54:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170914155423.GD26813@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av : even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but... Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 09:44:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach In-Reply-To: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> References: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170914164428.GA4289@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is : applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, : might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?.. I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981) count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei. So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod. While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such "tolados". : Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own : law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven? I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of authority is granted. There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of a Noachide court under dinim: The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society. This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10) and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid (Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim 10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim" includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law needs to look like. But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the other 6. This is shitas haRambam (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land. See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 11:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> Message-ID: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min : ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger : (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin was a meat thing in particular. But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the brain. (* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're the consensus, by sheer number.) If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration. It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort to obtain the treif milk. R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:00:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> References: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4636649d-ed8e-bc04-6e80-c299a962507c@sero.name> On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash > et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case > to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. > Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held > like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" > understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, > not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the > brain. You have the PC and CS reversed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1505420943267.43919@stevens.edu> Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170914201537.GB11862@aishdas.org> First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to R Akiva Miller's second post first. On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote: : As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that : takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real : halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the : lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, : but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that : does not apply to Chanukah. I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT) is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function of neis Shabbos. IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation" as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her feel less that she is shouldering the list alone. Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote: : Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. : The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was : "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a : level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why : this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, : because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs : of the home." Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..." But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah kavsah neiro shel olam connection.) The MB too... So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU cites, "only" the nesei keilim. : In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting : the lights is part of that! Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where women can consistently be homemakers..." The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way. BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't know what to make of that. Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular social state? This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book "Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law" https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing, and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes. One paragraph: Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways. The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point: according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations in a range of mitzvot! Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't know): Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal family unit. RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the thesis: Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical, and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single sex. He did not do so. ... Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family, we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids. So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed social structure. RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers, among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular kinds of social structure over others. ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with a husband and wife at the core. ... Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for, community units that comprise family units which comprise individual units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis. A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is so much to say about it. Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield: Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are -- and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 14:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170914210406.GB10180@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote: : There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): : 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the : Tannaim... According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im. According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion) it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over a dechuyah rule). So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and both talmuds. : 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and : Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? To sum up: 1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah. : Why did they let Machlokes fester? ... 2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted, or cannot be taken at face value. a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from the lishkas hagazis. Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post: b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should. And I suggested: c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that distinguishes between them. And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote: : > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won : > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority : > and passed their 18 gezeros. : That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed : group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It : sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either mean - number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5) - number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT sham) So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that would explain why they too got counted. But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 09:28:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:28:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> >From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss : Question: If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition. Answer: He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like an average person, and certainly not Maaser. If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur cholim, miqvah, shuls... I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of the rest of the community. Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. (I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to help, I would appreciate it.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 11:15:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? --------------------- From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 12:22:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170915192219.GD11421@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - : cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools (and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave them some guidelines for defining what that is. But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the complexity of their definition. And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/ poseiq would tell you to compute your share? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 17 07:08:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is the Customer Always Right? Message-ID: <95.E3.03036.1028EB95@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 15:19:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:19:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha > B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to > have a minyan? I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, as compared to wwithout a minyan. I thought that we say it Motzaei Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few days are left and we fear running out of time. Both reasons are even more relevant on Motzaei Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 21:39:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a25b83f-173e-6448-5511-011515a4e304@sero.name> On 18/09/17 18:19, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, > as compared to wwithout a minyan. Without a minyan one can't say the kaddish. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 01:56:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tuitiion Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: RMB wrote: > Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: > Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, > is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW > described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the > differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other > urgent causes? > I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one > may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if > promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are > currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: It is meritorious to support Torah scholars, and you may dedicate a portion of your [maaser kesafim] funds even to support one's own son studying Torah. You may likewise use a portion of these funds to pay for the your adult children's yeshiva gedola, midrasha and college tuition, but you should not draw on these funds for paying tuition while in elementary or high school. [1] However, someone lives a modest lifestyle and still cannot otherwise make ends meet, may draw on these funds even to pay for a portion of his minor children's Jewish day school tuition. [2] Someone who benefits from a scholarship at an institution of Jewish education should prioritize that institution when giving charity, over other institutions. [3] 1: Chatam Sofer YD 249 2: Igrot Moshe YD2 ?113, but Aruch haShulchan YD 249:7 disagrees 3: Oral ruling by Rav Hershel Schachter It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka. I once sent my kids to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we are discussing, since it is a poor community). -- Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 11:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral Message-ID: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> An Aish article notes: >The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >within them. There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first appear in Jewish thought?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 13:33:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom Message-ID: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> The most commonly cited reason that we say "oseh hashalom" rather than "oseh shalom" in kaddish during the 10 days, is that the gematria of hashalom is equivalent to the gematria of Safriel, the malach that "writes" us into the Book. (I just recently read somewhere else: "Hagahos Mordechai [Miseches Rosh Hashanah 720 he states as follows: Safiriel is the Gematria of Oseh and Oseh is the Gematria of Hashalom. Alternatively this hints to the kindness of Hashem that swerves the judgment to merit in a case that the sins and merits are equal, and the verse states "Maaseh Hatzedaka Shalom"." (I don't understand this second reason: the "sholom" in that last phrase doesn't have a "hey") I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their other reasons I am missing?) KvCT! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their > other reasons I am missing?) Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter counts. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:40:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <6d0c6039-0428-0174-88ec-0724ad47e1a5@sero.name> On 19/09/17 14:48, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >> forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >> Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >> imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >> within them. I assume this is in the context of a discussion of the way people in ancient times used to see time as cyclical rather than as progressing, as we moderns see it. > I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. > > Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first > appear in Jewish thought?) The idea that specific days have fixed properties that repeat every time they come around is found everywhere in Chazal. They took it completely for granted, and of course it fits into the cyclical way the ancients saw all of time. But it's clear from the Torah that they *didn't* see time as cyclical. So the author of this article uses the spiral to explain how they did see it. But it's impossible to discuss this entire subject without the insight that there are different ways to see time, and without the two models -- cyclical and progressive -- to contrast, and to propose syntheses as this author does. Chazal did not have the historical perspective to be aware of this whole dichotomy. I suspect they were unaware that the nochrim of their era didn't see time as they did, and that the nochrim were just as unaware that Jews didn't see time as *they* did. Only looking back from 2000 years later is this difference apparent, and we can discuss how the Torah's progressive view of history can be reconciled with dates repeating themselves, by using the spiral analogy. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 08:45:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170925154550.GC23052@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important : >as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, : >are their other reasons I am missing?) : Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the : first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter : counts. At least both the Chassidei Ashkenaz and the Tur held it was. There is no evidence of this line of thought any closer to the actual start of Nusach Ashkenaz. And a number of the Tur's word counts are dependent on flavor of Nusach Ashkenaz. Could well be that the significance is itself part of a bigger machloqes. They could also be taken as post-facto kavvanos, a way keep in mind a pasuq that colors what we mean by the baqashah, rather than causitive. It is interesting to me that the violation of word count gematrios in Nusach Ashkenaz is largely among Chassidim, who we culturally associate as the community most likely to deal in such remez. Except perhaps for Chida and Ben Ish Hai influenced Sepharadim, but they didn't have a nusach that made such claims to ask why they would choose to leave it. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 05:38:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:38:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? Message-ID: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, and what HKB"H wants from us: Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot switch its use). GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 09:30:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 25/09/17 08:38, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, > and what HKB?H wants from us: > Rama Y?D 249:13 (my free translation) ? In any event one shouldn?t > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won?t he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz ? so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 10:19:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:19:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: We change "min kol" to "mikol" to make up for the addition of the extra "l'eila".? So that the word count stays the same.? So yes, we see this kind of thing everywhere, including kaddish. Lisa On 9/19/2017 11:33 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria.? Do we see that elsewhere?? (Or, are > their other reasons I am missing?) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- I leave it to the readers to project if people put a name on as a form of bragging (separate question - is it intent or what observer's perceive that counts?) It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the item is not in danger of being switched in use? GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:29:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170925182902.GA16613@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:37PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An Aish article notes: :> The Jewish model of time is a spiral... : There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it : was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. : The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time : (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. : I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. There is no source, but it's a pretty compelling conclusion given Chazal's description of mo'eid, or chayav kol adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo repeating yetzi'as Mitzrayim annually OT1H, and yet OTOH speaking of history as inexorably running from Adam to the messianic era (and beyond). We might be the first generation consciously aware enough of the issue to think about our use of both language that implies circular time and that of linear time to want to make a synthesis "helical time". (True YU alumni would insist there is no helical time. Meaning comes from the tension of the dialectic; there is no syntheis. ) I don't question the value of lomdus, even though it is utilizing patterns in halakhah or halachic dialectic that weren't made explicit. Yes, that creates a change of error, but when the explanation is strong enough, do we reject the whole concept because the Rambam never spoke about gavra vs cheftza on topics other than oaths? Think how much hashkafah, or specifically Qabbalah, is drawn from just this kind of finding a theory to explain existing statements. This helical time is typical. So, is it a modern chiddush? That isn't a boolean question... to the extent you find this intepretation muchrach, it's inherent in what came bafore. And the the extent you don't, v.v. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:58:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>> Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't :>> glorify oneself with the charity he gives... :> Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their :> donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item :> donated... ... : It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the : item is not in danger of being switched in use? I am personally bothered when there is so much text on the paroches or cloth on the bimah (term?) that it detracts from the aesthetics. I am also bothered when more space is spent naming the donors than naming and perhaps lauding the person in whose memory the donation was given. That said... I think the consensus is that things have fallen to the point that we have two offsetting values that outweigh this ill: 1- When the choice is between collecting multiples more money with giving out honors vs operating on a shoestring and having to cut corners by only taking more purely motivated donations, the extra tzedaqah given is a mitzvah that outweights the alternative. 2- Even someone who has pure motives and wants to give quietly is living in a society that will respond positively if his donation is made public and influences the community. Peer pressure isn't just for teenagers. I think it's parallel to choosing chalitzah as a first choice. It's clear from the pasuq and the content of the ritual that chalitzah is something that in the ideal no one should be encouraged to choose. But as Abba Shaul noted, we don't live in that ideal world, and what was second-rate has become (centuries later) mandatory practice. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 12:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170925190253.GE16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, : as compared to without a minyan... We make a point of demonstrating communal unity in the middle. "Shalom Aleikhem!" Not speaking halachically, as you aren't obligated to greet 9 men, or even really greet anyone. But still... Aside from Zev's example of getting one more qaddish, which is a nice but incidental advantage, it seems to me that QL itself leans toward being a tzibur thing. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:34:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Ben On 9/19/2017 12:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I thought that we say it Motzaei > Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few > days are left and we fear running out of time. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:09:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:09:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <761520c3-faea-cd38-8ba8-ee24f675b3b7@sero.name> On 25/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > cloth on the bimah (term?) mappah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 03:39:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <046338f8-991f-2216-c55d-6002821d57a1@sero.name> On 26/09/17 01:34, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of > Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a > shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Not everyone does that, in fact some don't even say it on Shabbat, and wait until Shavuot. So zrizin doesn't necessarily override avelut. Also many don't do kidush levana until after 7 days from the molad, by which time we're into the deeper avelut. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 06:45:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170926134541.GB23180@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:34:30AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the : 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? ... I am confused. Isn't the implication simply that all else being equal, do it earlier because zerizin, but aveilus is sufficient for not considering all else equal? Why does zerizus being applicable mean that it is necessarily the most urgent halachic principle coming into play? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 11:54:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Over on Areivim, we were yet again discussing the cRc's position that one should not buy coffee from a full Starbucks store that sells food. Here's my take, cut-n-pasted from what I posted there. ... There is a lot of ham and bacon at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=hot-breakfast and poultry at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=sandwiches-panini-and-wraps The cRc's statement refers to these in particular . It also questions your assumption of the ubiquitous use of soap: Chicago Rabbinical Council Guide to Starbucks Beverages May 2013 / June 2015 ... As said, Starbucks shops serve many kosher and non-kosher items, with the most serious non-kosher item being hot meat sandwiches. The standard daily clean-up at Starbucks includes a hot wash of all utensils and some parts of that washing are done without soap. This clean up process significantly challenges the kosher status of the otherwise kosher products and each product must be judged by a competent halachic authority. The cRc has made available their detailed review and analysis of this topic in the spring 2011 edition of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and that article can be found below. Click here to read this article. The good news is that there are many Starbucks locations that do not serve hot meat sandwiches. These are generally the Starbucks kiosks which can be defined as a Starbucks location, usually found in a mall, retail store, a bus or train station or airport, that does not sell hot sandwiches. The cRc is comfortable recommending any drink made from kosher ingredients (even though some others use ingredients that may not be kosher). This list is accurate at this time for stores in the United States based on two and a half years of extensive research and consultation with the cRc's Av Beth Din, Rav Schwartz, shlit"a.... Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. And that is consistent with the lenient majority. We're trying to understand the cRc's ruling. There is no derabbanan here[, to justify another poster's invocation of safeiq derabbanan]. They're saying that the odds of your cup being washed without soap with a plate that held hot bacon or tereifah chicken is high enough that one needs to avoid taking that risk. But that's real nosein ta'am of an issur de'oraisa. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:56pm +0300 someone wrote to Areivim, on a discussion of the cRc's ruling against : I don't drink coffee at all, so I'm not a frequent Starbucks customer, but : I suspect that a sandwich like : https://www.starbucks.com/menu/food/sandwiches-panini-and-wraps/chicken-blt-salad-sandwich?foodZone=9999 : is probably at least 1/60th chicken or bacon. The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 13:17:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women Message-ID: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the topic of leadership/ordination for women. (I am indebted to some of those here who helped sharpen arguments :-) ). I think I have adequately illustrated that their position is based on wrong/unproven facts, poor logic, fuzzy definitions, strained arguments, and inconsistent application of the rules. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need to have a comprehensive and systematic approach to gender and public/leadership. I am happy to respond to questions, critiques and criticisms. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/sneak-peek-an-analysis-of-the-ban-on-women-rabbis/ Noam Stadlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 12:38:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926193827.GA27624@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:56:59AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: :> I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one :> may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if :> promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are :> currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. : From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: ... : It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as : tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his : minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But : what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka.... Agreed, but I don't see how it's obvious. Say your handyman is a pious guy, and rather than not doing business with people who can't afford his full rate, he charges them less for labor. Also, Rn Handyman isn't so willing to take the full hit on total income. Since this is a nice guy, we can assume that if more of the town were wealthier, his usual rate for someone who can beqoshi stretch the budget would be lower. Is the difference in salary tzedaqah? Does it make a difference if Reb Handyman actuall did this accounting and maybe even announced the resulting differential? Or is a baal melakhah's pay rate money owed, and such cheshbonos should be irrelevent. This imaginary scenario was designed to be both parallel and to my mind a somewhat wild line of reasoning. 1- Once you say that any tuition paid beyond the cost for your child is indeed tzedaqah, one needs a pesaq about how to apportion group costs to each individual student. The cost of the class divided by students, then the cost of school administation divided by the student body? Or maybe if a teacher is hired as soon as a class would otherwise grow beyond 25 students, I should be looking at the incremental cost of my child after the need to start the additional class was caused by someone else? And then -- could it depend on if I registered late, or before the number of classes was determined? And don't get me started on who is paying for resource room staff, where there are parallels to the above AND the reality that different kids would be using different amount of the service. So that my kid's 1 hour per week may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to get a math specialist, whereas another student's 5 hours of readin help is with a teacher they needed otherwise. Who pays what? 2- Once you make it tzedaqah, rather than considering tuition as debt, all could be fine-and-well halachically. And so it can come out of maaser kesafim. (All the more so because we aren't even sure maaser kesafim is a din.) And the schools like this, because it frees up maaser money for people who would otherwise need scholarship. But the line you're replying to was arguing that there is a downside for the school as well. As the teshuvah we started from notes -- debt is a higher priority than tzedaqah. You don't pay maaser out of money owed. And so, the school is marketing a din that may mean /less/ money for them than if the halakhah were that the full tuition should be treated as a debt. position for a sch chakhamim don't have to pay city defenses; maybe a good kid who doesn't see the principal should be considered : to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition : may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we : are discussing, since it is a poor community). GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 21:47:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> References: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4d52778a-5fe9-0dae-592c-ff6316a77877@sero.name> On 26/09/17 14:54, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health > department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough > regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. They wash in soapy water first, and then in clear water. The cRc's position is that soapy water, which is hotter than yad soledes bo but cooler than kashering temp, prevents the transmission of treife taam from one keli to another when they are washed together, but it does *not* render the treife keli permanently pagum. The treife keli comes out just as treif as it was, so when it's then put into *clean* hot water together with the kosher keli the treife taam transfers. > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical substance at all, so it's not surprising that even if it permeates the keli's entire structure, which we assume it does, it doesn't add to its mass. This is also why the bracha on coffee is shehakol, not ha'etz, because there is no substance of the coffee bean in the final product; only taam, smell, and colour are transferred in the brewing, all of which are assumed to have zero mass. Which makes the existence of instant coffee a conundrum, and casts doubt on the practise of saying shehakol also on coffee made from instant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Tabory via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom Message-ID: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. Yosef Tabory From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 08:26:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170927152646.GD1177@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote: : Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of : the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel : minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)... Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah. I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian "Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon, they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation -- 10 yemei teshuvah. To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh. : Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, : the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not : wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought : that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh : Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh) had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom" in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify abandoning it. ----- While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef, let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in "Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi yontef nusach for the joke to work. Why are so many Jews overweight? Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we sing: Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein! Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8), apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates! GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:30:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:30:33 +0000 Subject: “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux Message-ID: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> >From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")? A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart" (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13). IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me) GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:29:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:29:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds Message-ID: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense that A gets more credit(schar) than B? My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish, etc.) Thoughts? GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 19:34:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom Message-ID: . Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz. I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. Specifically: Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912 Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928 Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940 (Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.) Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949 Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950 Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960 The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960 Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982 There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this machlokes. However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different, and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America (who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 18:20:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical > substance at all, ... I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical substance? I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* be removed by cleaning. Gmar chasima tova to all, Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:21:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? Message-ID: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Please see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v I personally have always used money for Kapporas was. This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly mistreated before they are used for Kapporas. IIRC a few years ago it was discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water or food and died. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:31:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had to be discarded. After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost everywhere with the kapporos chickens. Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim: it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here. I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko. But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:48:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical >> substance at all, ... > > I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence > that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical > substance? I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a modern person to wrap ones head around. > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must > be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* > be removed by cleaning. If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing left to kasher! All you've done is clean the surface. There was never a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on the surface. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:54:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7096234e-1e3d-84c3-bb8b-dcfebecbb79f@starways.net> On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 10:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170928170022.GC32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence :> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical :> substance? : I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for : a modern person to wrap ones head around. I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT) about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion: : On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got :> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is :> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean :> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the :> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... : If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get : it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I : always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance : absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel : possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we understand an experience intellectually. This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs, etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience. My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer, than on the physics of the objects being utilized. Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance (like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance" (as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the past agreed with. If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked: > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the whole pot is indeed tainted. I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 12:03:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v ... : This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly : mistreated before they are used for Kapporas... That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens, not the minhag. This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag. The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag. In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it? Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori. (It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.) And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and "ve'ein leshanos". Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa") or not been doing kapparos at all. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 11:52:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588ee3662a16491c9404fcc82bfe2e8a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom. Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 28 22:03:26 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them > a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate object such as money. You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. > Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 29 13:15:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the : >Maharil)... : : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather from his own money. (Shelah) : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a meilitz yosher before going into din. I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the pidyon of the person. :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree.... Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag vasiqin"? GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht : Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a : life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it : with an inanimate object such as money. : : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but : the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after : kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or : else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The : Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, : since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. : : : >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- : >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were : doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand : it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. : : -- : Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, : zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all : _______________________________________________ : Avodah mailing list : Avodah at lists.aishdas.org : http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org : GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From zev at sero.name Fri Sep 29 13:33:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > : >Maharil)... > : > : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it > : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... > > Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather > from his own money. (Shelah) As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... > > Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is > inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer > to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a > meilitz yosher before going into din. Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka. Plus, kaporos is not done right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend doing it as much as a few days earlier). > I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have > primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation? > I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the > pidyon of the person. The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. > :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. > > : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means > : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its > : pedigree.... > > Source? It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". > He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously > suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves > pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin > to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition > fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag > vasiqin"? The same thing. Although don't know who gave this heter someone must have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we don't understand it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:05:15 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog Message-ID: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one? From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:14:07 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to another book which I don't own). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Sep 30 13:35:00 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: If I can mix actuality with the idea below: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. Ben On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the > Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after > kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or > else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer > Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since > it's less embarrassing to the recipient. From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:22:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c1fa29c-aa4b-122a-0dce-bfe50d5e5e32@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 > minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of > Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). > > What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to > another book which I don't own). Shulchan aruch OC 649. See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like the Rambam. Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being covered in more red berries than leaves, etc. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 19:18:58 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov Message-ID: . A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group: > The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when > Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is > known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is > a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one > is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in > for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving > lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed > and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good > both physically and spiritually! When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos. My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov? I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos. Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years, I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic - allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running, Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote "Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".) So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Looking forward to your responses. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sat Sep 30 18:03:12 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171001010312.GA17048@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". : > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will : > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give : > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather : > from his own money. (Shelah) : : As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do : kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. : Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos : is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give : tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. : >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is : >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer : >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a : >meilitz yosher before going into din. : : Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama : and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all : of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) As you yourself write, epmashsis added: : The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, : instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can : buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. : >: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : >: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : >: pedigree.... : > : >Source? : : It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a : plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find "vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim. Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless. The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the chain was already broken for a couple of generations. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 21:05:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3040f2fc-ea44-2eaf-3016-6c25f3b8b9c6@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and > sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the > mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only > applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar one may buy the cheaper one. The second opinion is that even if both are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a third more for the better one. This rule is not just for esrog, it's in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b). > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you can)? If > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a > hiddur to buy one? It means neither one. You left out a word. The Mechaber's language is "*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish". One should buy the better one, *if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior one. If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it. But there's certainly no restriction if you want to. The gemara says "Up to a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:25:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If I can mix actuality with the idea below: > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 > > What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with > tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or > honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that > affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in > Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck. There's nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-) Especially on Erev Yom Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah. The scandal is that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah. If they shechted them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared. [Email #2] On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". >:> And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will >:> be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give >:> maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather >:> from his own money. (Shelah) >: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do >: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. >: Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos >: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give >: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person > to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. We clearly have switched topics. There is no other way to read the Rama. The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka. The Rama says that we should not change this minhag. Then he says how it should be done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white. *Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the person. and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam". It's a pidyon just like pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the poor, we buy it back from tzedaka. >:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is >:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer >:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a >:> meilitz yosher before going into din. >: Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama >: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all >: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... > The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor > person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly. The minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them money. On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable. See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned earlier. So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery. See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to the poor. (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.) > (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about > a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes > no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) Where did you get this idea? There's nothing about it in the source we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen. The pasuk from Iyov is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" that we will shecht instead of this "gever". It has nothing to do with doing a mitzvah. Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov. > As you yourself write, epmashsis added: >: The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, >: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can >: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this. Giving it to the poor is a separate minhag. BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries or something, but you think it's good enough for them. This isn't a logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money prevents it. On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy day). >:>: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means >:>: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its >:>: pedigree.... This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an old minhag". But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised what it was. "Vosik" does not mean old. You're confusing it with "`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; strong; distinguished". "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a distinguished scholar". "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee distinguished among the nations". "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the conscientiously pious men of former days." So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn because they can't sleep anyway:-) [Email #3] PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really. https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7 defines it in leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced". So even when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time itself but to the experience gained over that time. The etymology is not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy". It does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, but of experience. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 1 19:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" Message-ID: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> 1) Balaam advocates the destruction of an entire people. He is a hired gun (or mouth) who has exploited his prophetic gift and is willing to help implement a genocide for the right price. This type of individual has separated himself from all people, hence, this position of his is coded in his very name Balaam, "B'li Am," "without a people." 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is called an "aton.? Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of the physical. But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey, therefore his donkey speaks to him -- the inference being that Balaam has descended to an animalistic level, and that is the symbolism of the donkey talking to him. I see it as "chamor" in the sense of "heavy" referring to Abraham, since he carries so much more weight than Balaam. On the other hand, Balaam's donkey is called ?aton,? very similar to the word "etnan" which means a "harlot's pay? ? quitet fascinating since Balaam prostituted himself with the intention of fulfilling Balak's request. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.? Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 2 08:25:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: RMB wrote: > IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than > Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ > that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what > the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions > in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) > believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in > 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. Indeed, I recall, upon dealing with those various shittos while in RIETS, particularly as covered by Rav Charlop in a shiur of his, that Satmar and Rav Kook are a lot closer to each other than to Agudah & Rav Soloveitchik. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 09:14:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:14:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?What_is_the_correct_way_to_pronounce_Hashem?= =?cp1255?q?=92s_name_in_Shmoneh_Esrei_and_other_brachos=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170703161444.GC18193@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Halacha Yomis ... : A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D ... "We have : a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, : that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY : -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf : Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." First, we know from seifer Shoferim that different shevatim had different accents, such that Shevet Ephraim (like Litvaks of a much later date) pronounced as right-dotted shin the same as a sin or samekh. So how can we talk about a single accent even at Har Sinai? I therefore assume RSZE Hy"d was saying that you need to use your mesorah's patach-cholam-qamatz, as he spells out in the rephrasing. And that these vowels are what's misinai. Which is also problematic, as the division of various possible vowel alophones into specific phonemes probably didn't happen until Teverya. This next paragraph may make your eyes glaze over. It justifies the previous one, but feel free to skip it if it bores you and move on to the next point: Which explains why Bavel's nequdos don't line up one-to-one with the ones we use today -- one symbol for segol and patach and one symbol for qamatz qatan and cholam with a different one for. And the prior Israeli system fits Sepharadi pronounciation, fewer symbols showing less differentiation, but it could simply be less precise. The way we still have one symbol for qamatz qatan and qamatz gadol, or sheva na and sheva nach. (Unless you are using a "simanim" or other non-standard printing. Unicode actually supports this differentiation, if you find a font and a text file that distinguishes.) One symbol does not mean one phoneme. But it hints at how the locals viewer the vowels. Like Rashi, who echoes the Babylonian single segol-patach system when he refers to a segol as a patach qatan. (If you are still reading this paragraph, you'd probably enjoy our mesorah email list. Ask me to sign you up!) R Rallis Weisenthal (CC-ed), in his siddur in memory of Qh"Q Bad Homburg pg LXV (on opensiddur.org), lists traditional Ashkneazi cholam sounds, claiming that they're all dipthongs. ("Claiming", because I am not sure he's right on one of them): Poland, Austria-Hungary komatz chirik O^i [t]oy Lithuania, Russia segol chirik Ae^i [p]ay Northern Germany, Holland patach shuruk A^u [h]ow Southern Germany, Switzerland, France, Latvia, England, North America komatz shuruk O^u [g]o I think the Lithuanian cholam was originally more like /oe/ a sound halfway between /o/ and a tzeirei. (And the /e/ of the tzeirei isn't quite the same as a segol.) What he is describing reflects later Polish influence, a compromise position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio could help here. And I think the British cholam actually is rounder than a qamatz, like a long /O/ in English. And like a long /O/, there is a tendency to add a rounding /w/ (eg "blow"), but it's not always there. Maybe a dipthong of qamatz qatan and a /w/, which is shitas haGra. Not entirely different than what RRW writes, but also not quite as implied from his description. Anyway, he has a continuing discussion by R' Y Kramer againt using a /y/ or /i/ sound to round a cholam. Go to the above link. It's too long and two bi-lingual for me to cut-n-paste here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 10:03:51PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. : However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is : called an "aton." : Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) : suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of : the physical. : But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey... Thus the root "aleph-tav", meaning together with (eg "ito bateivah"). The Gra makes this point about riding a chamor being mastery of one's chomer vs being together with one's ason. I bet RAK cites him. He lurks here, but I took the liberty of CC-ing RAK so as to get his attention. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 11:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The Maharal -- preceded the Gra on this point. Here is a paragraph from the new edition of Explorations (anticipated 20th anniversary edition) The denouement of history is in our hands. The Mashiach will be revealed in clouds of glory if we are worthy; if we are unworthy, our redemption will be of a far less exalted nature. If we are deserving, the clouds will be revealed sooner; if not, the redemption will take longer, and the process will be slow and plodding -- but the redemption will surely come. And just as the clouds are an image that is laden with meaning, representing man's ability to recognize and connect to the metaphysical plane, so, too, the image of the Messiah as a poor man riding on his donkey is no mere literary device: According to mystical sources, this metaphor holds the key to the redemption itself: The Zohar[1] explains that the role of Mashiach is to ride on the chamor, to subdue the physical.[2] ________________________________ [1] Zohar Bemidbar 207a ???? ??? ? ?? ??/? ????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?????"?. ?????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??????????, (????? ??) ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????"? ?????????. ?????? ???? ??????, ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? Those of the right are all merged in one called "donkey," and that is the donkey of which it is written, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" [Devarim 22:10]. That is also the donkey which the King Mashiach shall control. (Zohar, Bemidbar 207a) [2] See comments of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael chapter 40. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? - ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ?"? ???????? ???"? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????...??"? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. Can I repeat that second line on list? As for the first line... In general, email lists are failing. And yet, I don't want to move Avodah to a medium that encourages quick and short answers. If Avodah can't remain a place for in-depth discussion, I'll let it fade away. Mail-Jewish, the grand-daddy in the field, is coming out with a digest every two weeks or so. Although it's healthier than Avodah in terms of breadth of contributor pool. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 07:54:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it Message-ID: Recently, someone quoted a friend as saying something about how doing something for the wrong reason could constitute making the Mishna Burah into an Avodah Zara. Or something like that, I don't remember exactly, and I spent almost an hour trying to find the post, so that's why I can't quote it. Anyway, that person was wondering where the idea came from, and I found the following in the current issue of Jewish Action, also available online at https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ > Love of Torah does not always translate into love of > people ? or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk > caustically noted that increased religious observance is not > always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather > sometimes it is for the sake of ?worshipping the Shulchan Aruch.? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 11:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad Message-ID: Mishnah Megillah 4:9 teaches us: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad just like he blesses for the good." That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are talking about two different situations: If one has actually experienced something, then he must bless God for the good *OR* for the bad, whichever applies to the experience. There is no need to be inclusive, to mention that He is responsible for both. But when one speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when he must mention both the good and the bad. Or perhaps he can speak in generalities, but he must be careful not to suggest that God does *only* good things, to the exclusion of painful things: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that He *does* good. The things He does is described mostly in terms of the life He gives us, and the miracles that He does. (It is true that at one point it we thank Him for "tovosecha" - Your good things - but that is secondary, coming after "niflaosecha".) But then we turned to the fourth bracha of Birkas Hamazon, usually referred to as "Hatov v'haMaytiv" - "the One who is good, and does good" - from the central words. And then it continues: "Hu haytiv, hu maytiv, hu yaytiv lanu" - "He has done good, He does do good, and He will do good to us." And it closes with: "He will never deprive us of anything good." Where is the bad? In what way is this bracha not a violation of this mishna in Megilla? I concede that we've left out the Mishna's word "yizacher", but I don't think that is relevant. It appears to go directly against what the Gemara Megilla wrote, "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad." Is there any way to reconcile this gemara with this bracha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 13:44:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/07/17 14:54, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But when one > speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when > he must mention both the good and the bad. No. There is no need to mention all the things He does. Nor is there any need, when thanking Him for the good things He does, to include also the other things He does. What one may not do is declare that He is *to be thanked for* the good things He does, which implies He is *not* to be thanked for the other things he does. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:15:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered Message-ID: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:17:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:17:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 08:00:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170706150007.GD11698@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:17:31PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? : If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at : all minyanim? By whom? In an alternate reality, where I went into kelei qodesh instead of Wall Street programming jobs, there is (would have been?) a movement by now called Mevaqshei Tov veYosher, a/k/a Other-Focused Orthodoxy (OFO). The OFO flagship shul, Yishrei Leiv, hosts AishDas programming, of course, and at this point in alternate time, has a number of ve'adei mussar, shiurim in machashavah and workshops in tefillah. And, in line with OFO ideology, the rule for who can correct the baal qeri'ah is simple. The only people who can do so are (would be): 1- the gabbaim, 2- the rav, and 3- next week's baal qeri'ah . (Everyone else should go to the gabbaim quietly. Even at the expense of an occasional repeated pasuq. But also gabbaim would need to know diqduq and be able to field the simpler questions of which mistakes actually require correction.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 7 15:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:51:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION Message-ID: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> I sent an email to AVODAH where I mistakenly wrote that Rav Rivkas from Rabbeinu HaGra's family did not write Be'er Hagolah seeking to correct their misspelling. I wrote Bay.ur Hagolah. NEITHER is correct. He wrote B' er HaGolah. there is a shva under the Bais. I ws mistakenly thinking of ppl mistakenly saying Biur HaGra instead of Bay.ur Hagra. My mistake but as least I was thinking of the Gra. :) Reb Joel -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:51:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] the desire to be remembered Message-ID: <000001d2f823$a6448d60$f2cda820$@actcom.net.il> I would call this the need for recognition or the desire for kavod. I think it is a yetzer akin to the need for food or the desire for sex, the yetzer hara that is 'tov la'adam' as Bereshit Rabba puts it. Without the appetite for food, we would probably die of malnutrition; without the desire for sexual pleasure we would probably not want to procreate, and without the desire for kavod/recognition, we would probably be sociopaths. Our need for recognition (desire to be remembered, if you prefer) enables everything from toilet training to basic manners to our desire to contribute positively to society. If we did not need the approval of our parents and our peers, we would never get far enough along the path of social interaction to learn the rewarding nature of altruism and doing good for the sake of doing good. The process of socialization makes us human. Without our need for kavod/approval/recognition, it is hard to see how we could ever be educated. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 14:24:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:24:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India Message-ID: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties between Israel and India? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 19:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India In-Reply-To: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> References: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 08/07/17 17:24, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol > worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties > between Israel and India? I don't see why. There were treaties between our ancient kings and foreign rulers, pretty much all of whom served AZ. And of course there's the treaty between Yaacov & Lavan, which was explicitly backed by each party's deity/ies. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 08:24:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION In-Reply-To: <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> References: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59624AA6.4070406@schnurassociates.com> at least I know that there are some people actually reading what I send out, so TY 2 Rabbi Ralbag, shimon, Capt Dan and I think Mendy for responding. as for the rabbi's comment, I am pleased to see/read that he has a good sense of humor. I also learned how to spell email in Hebrew. My announced CORRECTION reminds me of the incident with Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he had a prober for being Rosh Hayeshiva for KOL TORAH. he was giving his shiur and someone corrected him. He stopped, thought about it and then said 'taeeti" figuring he blew his chance for getting the job. Afterwards they told him he was selected as RY and he supposedly said "but I blew it when I made that mistake." Just the opposite they said. We want someone who is able to admit he made a mistake. and with that story, I end this adventure. :) B'yidedus, Joel > Rav Ralbag > July 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM > ?? JOEL: > ???? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. > ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????-??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? > ????? !! > ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? - ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? > ??? !!!!??? > ??? ???? ????? ?????-????? ! > ????? ???? ???? ??? ?-?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ??????? ??? ????? > ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? - ?????, ???? ????? ???? > ???? !!! > ??????? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, > ???? ????? On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, mendy stern wrote: > So you want to be the Rosh Yeshiva? Only if the yeshiva davens nusach HaGra! Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 19:36:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? ---------------- My shul does not, except that the previous (now deceased Rav) was very against it, quoting the Tur about embarrassing the Baal Korei. That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 20:00:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:00:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <04ba01d2f928$bced1db0$36c75910$@gmail.com> R' JR: R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? ------------------------ Maslow's highest level in his Hierarchy of Needs (in its later permutations) is self-transcendence. I think that's what you're talking about. Here's some further on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcenden ce KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 02:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:45:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ================================ We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 09:24:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: ?Pinhas? has turned back Chamati, My wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11) So, Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous, difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamati (my wrath), the two outside letters chet and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters, mem and tav, read meit ? death. The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meit) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai). (Also, if you remove the "W" (for Wilderness) from "wrath" and replace it with "O" (for Obedience to God), the ?orath? can be rearranged to read Torah). Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live. Norman Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 11:58:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:37am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote to Areivim: : In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla : attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. : : My review and analysis of his failed approach to halacha is at : http://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/2017/7/7/the-not-so-orthodox-embrace-of-the-new-age-movement Although RBR posted to Areivim, I have an Avodah question. To quote: > To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For > example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has > been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to > the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved > as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies > it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, > or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it > globally. And the article discusses things like auras and other New Age ideas that if traced back to their origins one will find AZ. Is it all that different than the gemara's discussion or wearing a fox's tooth, where even a Rationalist like the Rambam (Shabbos 19:13) permits? Darkhei Emori are allowed for refu'ah (AZ 67a). Also Rashi (Chullin 77b "yeish") which according to the Panim Me'iros (1:36) includes any act to the body to be healed, but not "spooky action at a distance" (to quote Dr Einstein out of context). The Ran (Chullin ad loc) based on this Rashi explicitly permits any act we know works to heal, even if the workings are metaphysical. So is the difference only in which metaphysics I personally believe is real, and which is -- again, IMHO -- "woowoo"? And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? Are the laws of tereifos, which say put despite later findings about what an animal can live 12 months with, and what not, typical and precedent to say we go with Chazal's science, law is law, ignore the science? Or is it an exception because tereifos is halakhah leMoshe miSinai? I could see the standard of medical testing being decided by that question... Or... when it comes to which saqanos one is allowed to risk, the standard is normal and accepted. If people tend to climb trees to pick dates, it is mutar to get a job risking a fall from the top of a date-palm. Perhaps medicine too is defined by societal standards. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 12:27:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> References: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> Message-ID: And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 14:47:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170710214723.GA29132@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to : be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this : desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's : knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or : general society)? >From a recent blog post of mine, The Interpersonal Aspect of Parah Adumah : To illustrate how the Yerushalmi works, I enjoy taking a rather extreme case -- Berakhos 7:1, 51b: 1. Rav Huna said: Three who eat, this one by himself, this one by himself, and this one by himself, who then mix together should bentch with a mezuman. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three people, so that each ate with an obligation of zimun, even if from different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may make a zimun] when they ate together. 1. Rabbi Yonah [commented] on that which Rab Hunah [was just quoted as saying]: If [the kohein] dipped three hyssop sprigs [into the water made with the ashes of a parah adumah], this one by itself and this one by itself, and mixed them [the hyssops] together, one may sprinkle [the person needing taharah] with them. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three sprigs, so that each sprig was dipped as part of a group of three, even if different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may may be used for sprinkling parah adumah water] when they were dipped together. ... But what justifies this comparison? Is it really an expectation that all groups of three ought to be alike, regardless of the topic or the sort of group? In 1973, Ernest Becker wrote a book on philosophy and psychology titled "The Denial of Death". To give a thumbnail of his basic thesis, here are some snippets from [38]The Becker Foundation's "Theories" page: "[T]he basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death." ... The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of mortality. Since human beings have a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we can transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving the symbolic half. Becker describes human pursuit of "immortality projects" (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things. Still, for Becker, the only suitable source of meaning is transcendent, cosmic energy, divine purpose... Becker develops an idea that strikes most of us naturally. A central -- and perhaps THE central -- piece of our drives to contribute to community and to pursue a higher meaning is because these both overcome our own death. What I give my children outlives me in my children, grandchildren and beyond. What I contribute to the Jewish People is eternal because our nation is eternal. What I add to the development of humanity from Adam to the messiah outlives me in impacting the lives of generations to come. Fear of death, the need to embark on "immortality projects" can push us to expand our souls to beyond our mortal bodies. As Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to his substance and body. Above that one is someone who feels that his "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above that one is someone who can include in his "ani" all of his household and family.... And there are more levels in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the world and worlds are his "ani," and he himself is only one small limb in all of creation.... Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and [even] all of creation. The parah adumah is about overcoming death. A person who witnessed or experienced another's death is told to go through a ritual of changing tracks... He not only sees three sprigs from a scrubby bush, but also is thinking about joining together and how he can join with others. How to turn that conversation around from death and its reminder that we are merely physical beings toward death as a drive to go beyond that. We should not forget the most cryptic (choq-like) element of the parah adumah. ... [I]t requires that someone from the community reach out to them, even at their own expense. A true uniting of someone who might be thinking about death and man-as-mammal back into being a person contributing meaning to a larger community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 19:08:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on > chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better > standards for testing medicine? R' Joel Rich responded: > The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud > certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and > correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with > sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what > was known to them in their time." > > I'd appreciate specific examples I recently tried to learn a bit about Techum Shabbos. I was very surprised to find an entire siman (#399, with eleven se'ifim), giving details of exactly how the techum is to be measured. For example, the first se'if specifies that we must use a linen rope exactly 50 amos long. I was very surprised that the halacha would write such things, rather than simply presuming that we'd be smart enough to use whatever procedures are generally accepted as accurate. This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do it. The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective one, and tradition might rule. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 21:51:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> R' JR: We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. -------------------------------- I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 04:56:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fb6f6b1-b8cd-4075-09ea-8f770a1b66bd@zahav.net.il> If the person is reading from a full Bible, I will just listen. If I am not sure what book he's reading from, I'll read it to myself. IIRC the Mishna Bruria takes it as a given that the reason most shuls don't read from the klaf is because of the cost. Given today's incomes and fancy shuls, that shouldn't be a factor. And yet, it is the rare beit knesset where they read from a klaf. Ben On 7/11/2017 6:51 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? > > KT, > MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 15:50:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170711225048.GA29349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be : corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to : themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach : Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. : : Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? I will confirm. ... WRT shuls that aren't leining from kelaf. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 17:09:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 18:31:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170712013159.GA6359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, : who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a : surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, : they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do : it. Say I were to use a shorter rope. Well, then my measurments would include more dips and bumps. Whereas the 50 ammah rope might cut a direct path, a shorter rope would have two segments, in different angles. The measure would be longer than if you just cut the tangent. (And in fact, since most landscape is fractal, or nearly fractal until you get cown to molecules, if your "ruler" were smaller than a grain of sand, you could probably measure 50 amos along the wrinkles of the surface within an arm's reach of where you started.) So, the length of the rope will actually change the final measure. The navi implies that a shorter rope would be /too/ accurate, forcing a smaller measure than necessary. The weight of the chain means that sagging is more common, as lest if you aren't a surveyor. Or maybe the exact strechiness of linen - less than wool but more than metal, is also part of the actual measure. ... : The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might : agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better : procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring : distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular : procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective : science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective And to reframe where I was going above in these terms: There are times when Chazal are not trying to establish objective facts. (Or, to revive another old thread and my hangup about how halakhah defines metzi'us: ... to establish as objectively as possible those facts that could potentially enter our subjective experience.) In nidon didan, the question would be: In order for a treatment not to be derekh emori, and to be allowed on Shabbos where medicine for a choleh sh'ein bo saqanah would be allows, does it 1- have to be established as potentially effect to the best we can establish it? or 2- have to be accepted as potentially effective by chazaqah, which is the normal rule for justifying presumption in cases of doubt? How objetive are we being asked to be? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 12 19:06:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:06:59 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not Shechted? Meaning, if we have a creature that cannot be Shechted, but it is not a non-Kosher species, it might be a Neveilah but be Kosher to eat because there is no prohibition on eating Neveilah. The non-fully gestated cow sheep or goat, even if it is born in the normal manner, is not classified in Halacha as Bakar or Tzon. See Rashi Chulin 72b end of Mishneh. It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 03:33:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170713103351.GD14756@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:54:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ :> Love of Torah does not always translate into love of :> people -- or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk :> caustically noted that increased religious observance is not :> always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather :> sometimes it is for the sake of "worshipping the Shulchan Aruch." In R' Shlomo Wolbe, Alei Shur, vol II, "Frumkeit" , speaks of halachic obervant not for the sake of worshipping G-d, but speaks to why one would "worship the SA" if it isn't about G-d. A translation of the opening: > Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge to connect to the Creator. This > instinct is also found in animals. King David said, " The young lions roar > after their prey, and seek their food from G-d." (Psalms 104:21) "He gives > to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." (Psalms 147:9) > There is no need to understand these verses as [mere] figures of > speech -- animals have an instinctive sense that there exists One who > is concerned about their sustenance. This instinct [also] operates in > man -- on a higher level, of course. This natural frumkeit [instinct] > assists us in our service of G-d, and without this natural assistance > our service would would be extremely heavy upon us. However, frumkeit, > like any other instinctive urge that operates within man, is naturally > egotistical and self-centered. Accordingly, frumkeit drives a person to > do only that which is good for himself -- [in contrast, positive] actions > between man and his fellow man, as well as wholehearted actions between > man and G-d are not fueled by frumkeit. One who bases his service on it > alone remains egocentric. Even if he were to impose many stringencies > upon himself, he would not become a man of kindness, and he would not > reach [the level of] altruistic service. This is what necessitates that > we base our service specifically on intellect... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 16:31:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:00:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3abd2947-8a52-7433-c908-731af71507b2@sero.name> On 13/07/17 19:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr > Gouraud of the US. Google misinforms you. See, e.g., http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1412.htm#20 Or, lehavdil, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/1935454 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:37:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> R' MB: The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. --------------------------------- Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which was intended for facial hair. KT, MYG P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:11:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20170714151122.GB32531@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: : Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which : was intended for facial hair. It says that the poor "waxed" themselves with sid; and I am assumign that's not for skin as sensitive as cheeks. The rich used soles. Was this as an abrasive? Is fine flour even abrasive, or (as I seem to recall of today's grindings) -- soft? I think the rich used white makeup. And benos melakhim used shemen hamor, which we are told is acidic olive oil from underripe olives. While I do not doubt that benos melakhim tried this a means to reduce hair growth (the gemara says it also ma'adan habasar) I do doubt it worked. More recently (meaning, up to the mass production of depilatories) in Europe, cat's urine (for the ammonia, a strong base) or vinegar (an acid) were used. Both were believed to prevent or reduce hair growth, not remove what did gwo. But both failed double-blind testing. : P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use : wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. Many NA nations also tend to produce far less facial hair than most Jewish men to start with. I guess people can learn to get used to it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714152753.GA14639@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:59PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not : Shechted? In his Bar Mitzvah derashah, R' Chaim Brisker proved that neveilah and tereifah were aspects of the same underlying issur. Thus explaining (among other points I do not remember) why the Rambam holds that a neveilah and a tereifah can be metz'tarfos to a kezayis issur. Which would imply that WRT eating, all non-shechted meat is the same, and the issur is the lack of shechitah, not the tum'as neveilah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:47:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714154729.GB14639@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies : that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that : contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad : just like he blesses for the good." But that doesn't mean he must bless for the bad whenever he blesses for the good. Which is I think the chiluq that resolves the problems you raised. : That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say : one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one : experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On : *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is : irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Actually, even painful effects of the same occasion. Like the textbook case: Inheriting a large some of money requires making both Dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. : Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are : talking about two different situations... I think they are both talking about the good and tragic in the same situations. The first mishnah is prohibiting someone from even implying in a non-response context that when experiencing tragedy, one can skip Dayan ha'emes. : So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually : followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It : turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is : mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that : He *does* good.... Mah beinaihu? After all, all His "Middos" are about appearances and how the effects of his Action look to us. And actually, it pretty explicitly says in one point that it's about G-d appearing to us as Good -- "'haTov' shimkha". But as I opened, I didn't see Megillah as saying when we offer general thanks, it must be about both. Rather, he cannot be the kind of peson that skips thanking Him for those things He does "for our own good" (to paraphrase the stereotypical parent line). And thus, no problem in the 4th berakhah of bentching, either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:08:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: . R' Meir G Rabi asked: > It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just > like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. Why can't a horse be shechted? Is it missing the simanim? Of course, it would still be assur to eat the horse because it is a tamay species, but would that prevent one from doing a valid shechita? (I vaguely recall a case where a choleh sheyesh bo sakana was prescribed pork by his doctor, and the rav told him to shecht the chazir.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:02:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of him that is generally accepted as accurate? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:26:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure > I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone > reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only > the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go > 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? I have no idea what you mean by "litvishe" in this context. Do you mean Nusach Ashenaz, or Yeshivish, or In A Yeshiva, or something else? Anyway, in the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls and yeshivos that I have attended, virtually no one reads the haftara to himself, regardless of whether the Reader is reading from a klaf, a printed Tanach, or a Chumash. And those few who *do* read it to themselves are (unfortunately) loud enough to make it difficult to hear the Reader. In the Nusach Sefard shuls I've been to, there much more people reading to themselves. In fact, the Reader often doesn't even attempt to raise his voice so that others can hear him. But I've attended Nusach Sefard shuls rarely enough that I cannot venture a guess about the percentages. R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:23:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:23:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185632c6b5e74915992256cfd1207daf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ because I assumed that one was not being yotzeih with that reading but one's own Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 20:00:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:00:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes > are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of > the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an > educational thing"? I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. There is a chiyuv for a tzibur to read the Torah, although not on any individual to hear it. Even if ten men come into shul after krias hatorah they do not have to make it up, but if it was not read at all then the tzibur must make it up. But with the haftarah even if it was not read at all they need not make it up; this shows that there is no chiyuv, and therefore nothing that can be said not to have been fulfilled. Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:24:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? Or to be less pretencious: *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos on the other side? My wife is a righty and we use joint accounts. We are both listed as owners, and both of our names were on the mortgage. Even if I were supposed to hang my mezuzos on the left, are we shutefim in owning the house and therefore it should follow the rightward norm? I asked R' Gidon Rothstein, since it was his recent post on Torah Musings that launched my wondering, and he felt that it would go by the assumption that typical people coming in and out of the house are righty, and the owner's handedness shouldn't matter. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 08:25:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> References: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/07/17 22:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the > baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? > > Or to be less pretencious:*Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his > mezuzos on the other side? I wouldn't expect it, because I don't see any sevara to differentiate between houses based on who the owner is. Mezuzah is (lich'orah) a chovas cheftza, and the house is not left-handed! (See http://tinyurl.com/y9btfa9c , who cites R Chaim Brisker, Stencil #3) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/2017 6:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes >> are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of >> the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an >> educational thing"? > > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let > alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply that it's not just casual reading? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170716193026.GA17994@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that : imply that it's not just casual reading? to strengthen the point, that "we" includes Sepharadim, who don't make berakhos on minhagim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 19:16:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28c39ae9-0df9-89c0-ea06-a5e1b0b700a7@sero.name> On 16/07/17 15:20, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let >> alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. > > But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply > that it's not just casual reading? It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a missed haftara. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:42:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The problem with OU DE In-Reply-To: References: <1500310874499.90870@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170718214244.GA27595@aishdas.org> On 7/17/2017 7:03 PM, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: > Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a > Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel > bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is > that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not > simultaneously. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote: : Why not? Bateil is bateil. See Chullin 11b. Dagim that "alu" into a qe'ara of meat may be eaten with milchig. But going on a plate of meat -- what does that mean? Does it mean cooking? Ashkenazim hold, "'alu' -- aval lo nisbashlu". It's na"t bar na"t. The Tur, the YD 95, the BY's discussion of the Rivan and Tosafos, Rama YD s' 2, the Shakh s"q 3, and the AhS s' 5,11-15 assert as much halakhah lema'aseh. The way you treat bitul, there would be no such thing as nosein ta'am. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:24:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: <596E7C94.5030109@schnurassociates.com> Our K'vasikin minyan at the Young Israel of Ave k in Flatbush, K & East 29, (45 minutes before HaNetz on Shabbos and YT, 30 minutes on cholo shel moed and RH), reads from a klaf only al pi HaGra and only the baal k'riah reads while everyone else just listens and answers awmen (no BHUS) -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos > on the other side? Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it on the right side of the one who enters." And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 16:47:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:47:22 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: R Akiva Miller asked - why can a horse not be Shechted? A horse cannot be Shechted the same way that a G cannot perform Shechitah. Shechitah is not a mechanical action performed to meet certain criteria - Shechitah requires the right person, the right animal and the proper action. The Mishneh Chullin 72b asks a Q we would never ask, in fact it takes a very long time to actually read and make sense of the Mishneh, so counter intuitive is its premise. Why is it that a horse is a Neveilah even if it is Shechted whereas a cow which is Shechted is not a Neveilah in spite of it being a Tereifa? In our mind, the non-Kosher status of a Tereifa is a consequence of its ritual blemish which in no way affects the Shechitah; of course the Shechitah should prevent the animal becoming a Neveilah. But that is not how the Mishneh sees things - the Mishneh understands that the Tereifa status of the cow invalidates the Shechitah - it is, in the Mishneh's mind, equivalent to Shechting a horse. The Mishneh answers that Yesh BeMino Shechitah - meaning, although the animal itself ought to be deemed not Shechted, nevertheless as a species it has an association with Shechitah so the Shechitah will, in spite of being imperfect, prevent it becoming a Neveilah. And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. R Micha already noted that this touches upon the [in]famous bar-mitzvah Pshettel of R Chaim. But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The Gemara [Chullin 113] requires a special Ribbuy to teach that there is an Issur to cook premature born cow with milk Gedi LeRabbos Es HaShellil. Why? Why might we think it is not like a regular cow? The Tiferes YaAkov explains that such an animal has no Issur Cheilev, Chullin 75a, which is unsurprising considering that it is not a BeHeimah, so we may well have argued there is no Issur BBCh; KMLan that it is deemed to be Bassar for the Issur of BBCh. Now think about this - a Jew may not cook nor eat BBCh If a Yid however is about to eat Cheilev, which he may not cook with milk since it is deemed to be Bassar, we cannot warn him that he is transgressing the Issur of eating BBCh. Why? Because Ein Issur Chal Al Issur - once the Issur of Cheilev is already in place the later Issur of BBCh cannot take hold. Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Which seems to indicate that although it is a Neveilah, there is no Issur to eat a prematurely born cow. [To be sure we would need to verify that it has not entered its ninth month.] Hence my Q - Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:23:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, > let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps "minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes? > Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read > at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is that we're supposed to be doing? In a later post, he wrote: > It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's > takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that > one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias > hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this > from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it > must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a > missed haftara. I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read. Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:31:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> On 7/19/2017 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay > when the haftarah is read improperly? I don't think the question works. Consider: we have a chiyuv to daven shmoneh esrei. But there are different girsaot, so clearly, exact wording isn't critical to fulfilling the requirement. So we already see that there are different levels of chiyuvim, and that we are more medayek on exact wording on some levels than others. Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to something like haftara than there is for Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719101803.GA11560@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos :> on the other side? : Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it : on the right side of the one who enters." : And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And : there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Besheim the Mordechai. The Shakh) says this is true even if the lefty lives alone or the whole family is lefty. Because mezuzah is a chiyuv on the house, not like tefillin's chiyuv, which is on the guf. The Be'eir Heiteiv quotes the Shakh, adding "vekhein nohagim". The AhS (s' 5) gives multiple reasons: 1- A house is made for anyone who lives there, not this specific person. Which might be the same explanation, might not. Seems related to the fact that we do not take mezuzos down when the next owner is Jewish. 2- He contrasts to tefillin, where the pasuq uses the word "yadkha" and we darshen "yad keihah", whereas "beisekha" is used to darshen the din that it's direction from which one enters. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 05:46:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84213f099d8841fb92a75e4a8d758038@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 04:27:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's > surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" > when it comes to something like haftara than there is for > Torah. We seem to agree that it *IS* possible to read the haftarah IMproperly, in contrast to R' Zev Sero, who wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be > read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't > be invalid. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 06:52:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> On 18/07/17 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas > chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, But that is key. What is a chiyuv, or rather in Hebrew a chovah? As anyone who's read an Ivrit bank statement or balance sheet can tell you, it's a liability. "Lotzeis y'dei chovah", or "being yotzei", means discharging that liability. If there is no chovah then there is nothing from which to exit; one cannot speak of being yotzei something that is not a chiyuv. Now krias hatorah is not a chovah on any individual. If one missed leining one shabbos one needn't make it up. Even if there are 10 men who missed it, and therefore could make it up if they wanted to, they don't. But it is a chovah on the tzibbur; if for some reason an entire community was unable to read the Torah one week they must make it up the next week by reading two sedros. If they don't then their liability has not been discharged. When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". Of course if it is to be read it should be read correctly. *Anything* that is read should be read correctly; there is no virtue in reading carelessly, as if one's words are of no importance so it doesn't matter if one butchers them. But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, and since not reading it leaves no undischarged liability on the community therefore a bad reading doesn't do so either. > Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim > correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is > that we're supposed to be doing? Suppose my argument is incorrect, and there *is* some obligation which the community must discharge? How long a reading counts? We know that the gemara's mention of 21 pesukim is merely a recommendation, since we routinely disregard it. So how small *can* we make it? By analogy with krias hatorah we can say that fewer than three pesukim is not a reading at all. But maybe the analogy is inapt, and the takana is fulfilled by *any* reading from the nevi'im, even just one pasuk, or perhaps even a single phrase. After all the whole takanah is simply in memory of the time when krias hatorah was banned, so we read nevi'im instead; so perhaps even a very small reading is enough to evoke this memory. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, >>> This illustrates why I suggested avoiding words like "chiyuv". Is our goal to be in a status of "no worse than not having read it at all"? Surely not! If we would be satisfied with such, then why do we bother reading it? Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I don't understand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:36:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: <51a89e09-5077-e733-156f-9027c6f70dc9@sero.name> On 19/07/17 13:20, Akiva Miller wrote: > > Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting > someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or > whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems > to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I > don't understand. I'm saying that it's not *required*, and therefore it becomes a highly situational question of balancing the reader's sensitivity and the tircha detzibura against a desire to hear a haftara that doesn't grate on the nerves. There's no "I'm sorry but if we don't correct him we won't be yotzei". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 12:43:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719194312.GA13614@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. : I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of : him that is generally accepted as accurate? Mequbalim in Itali had a mesorah from the Rama miFano (late 16th - early 17th cent) that beards were only appropriate in EY. The Ramchal's lack of beard was mentioned in the charges against him when he was drummed out of Italy for teaching a very messianic Qabbalah too soon after Shabbeta Zvi. Someone once showed me a Chasam Sofer and a Chidah which refer to this practice. But I couldn't find it. Meanwhile, I found Gilyon Maharshah (R' Shelomo Eiger), at the end of YD 181, says that kamah gedolei hamequbalim, talmidei haAri, who cut their beards with scissors. So, scissors is no my default assumption, which means they probably had some visible stuble, if not enough to qualify as a "beard". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 02:09:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> References: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> Message-ID: <19840673-e64a-c7e5-41b9-92f64dd10daf@zahav.net.il> Ikkar ha-din, someone who can't properly enunciate Hebrew letters isn't allowed to pray from the amud, never mind read the Torah or Haftorah. I don't know if there is a need to correct someone who consistently makes mistakes but there is certainly no reason to allow him to read at all if he can't do it properly. As an aside: one of my rabbis said that RYBS didn't correct someone in class who made mistakes reading the Gemara text but if someone made a mistake with a pasuk in the Gemara, then the Rav let him have it. Ben On 7/19/2017 12:31 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot > more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to > something like haftara than there is for Torah. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:11:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then > I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant. I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe "tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also. Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors, including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria Message-ID: RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing about the nature of the original obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 24 11:53:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah Message-ID: <20170724185345.GA20358@aishdas.org> In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61) discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads "leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving her a real gett. The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because "almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other misspellings that have only one possible intent. I was wondering if this is too fanciful: Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah" could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often given given in CE. Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could cross the readers mind. Maybe? Or too creative? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 06:47:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 12:40:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 08:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721@aishdas.org> One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 09:50:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:36:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:34:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:31:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:13:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 12:10:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:21:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:49:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> References: <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 23:38:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and historical. He brings parts of the midrashim about Avraham Avinu's early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for any other reason than to understand the historical facts. Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 26 July 2017 08:49 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Washing Clothes During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 2. The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 3. Menorah on Arch of Titus (Micha Berger via Avodah) 4. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 5. Showering During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 6. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 7. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 8. Re: alma vs. almah (elazar teitz via Avodah) 9. Re: alma vs. almah (Micha Berger via Avodah) 10. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 11. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/494286688/Ohr-Somayach-Logo-150sq_bigger.jpg] Showering During the Nine Days?! by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz tinyurl.com YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger , avodah The General Discussion Area for Avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"; format="flowed" On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , llevine at stevens.edu, Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 From: elazar teitz via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: elazar teitz , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:13:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? Message-ID: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:14:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: From "Religion Within Reason" by Steven Cahn: "To have faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . To describe someone as a person of faith suggests that the individual is strong-willed, fearless, and unwavering." Question to all - what percentage of the frum world have no doubts? How many don't think about it at all? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 05:11:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering during the Nine days In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: see: Is it permissible to shower during the Nine Days? http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/is-it-permissible-to-shower-during-nine.html [or -mi] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:09:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? I am in the middle of R' Mordechai Torczyner's (CC-ed, please include him in replies) shiurim on ribis. http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&category=0,234696 In particular, shiurim no.s 3-5 are about refunds. It's under 2 hrs total, and if you know something of the sugya, 1.25x speed is doable. The first lines of the source sheet to those shiurim is "Lamah yeish chiyuv lehachzir ribis?" http://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=529082 If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:17:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih but not a tikkun for the lav) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 19:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Torczyner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim >> was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. >> If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would >> be subject to maaser kesafim. ... > Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is > something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih > but not a tikkun for the lav) > KT Hi R' Joel, Indeed, the Ritva's view is that ribbis, once paid, belongs to the creditor. The creditor is obligated to pay it back, but the money is his for purposes including Kiddushin. Other applications include whether the borrower has the power to forgive the repayment, and whether the creditor's heirs have a duty to repay. Kol tuv, Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 10:19:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:19:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c1d64f4e4564ec7b59a1d187400d9bd@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." ============================== I'd appreciate specific examples ============================== Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== I finally tracked down a copy of the book and read through it-I?d simply say that one must underline heavily the statement ?the best of what was known to them in their time? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:09:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> I read Rachel Levmore's "Decentralizing Religious Authority" at Teaser: Overview Orthodox Jewish life used to be a simpler matter for those who wanted to lead one. There was an unspoken system in place. One could approach the local rabbi with a question. If he didn't know, scholars higher up in the "hierarchy" could weigh in until the question reached the "gadol hador." Despite the plurality of approaches which always existed, there was a definitive address whose opinion would be accepted by all (or almost all). Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone. The present circumstances, which have witnessed a breakdown of authority in general society coupled with the absence of an uncontested authoritative Torah scholar, has led to absurd situations. Lacking agreed-upon "gedolim" today, a void exists... Without any proper halakhic discourse between various rabbis who deem themselves to be leaders (even if they lack followers)... And so on, with a pretty sociological take on the problem, and how it applies to controversy over the halachic prenup. As is usual for me, I'm intrigued by the theoretical meta-issue. Given that we've entered an era that there is a dirth of gedolim whose rulings are followed across multiple communities and eidot, is there a significant change to how halakhah is done? And I'm not saying this is entirely about nisqatnu hadoros, and how today's gedolim aren't like those of my youth. Some of it is also the effects of universal education, google, social-media cynicism and echo chamber, and the social trends that cause the popularity of such social media, and other societal changes that made people less likely to respect authority that isn't fully in agreement with what they decided the truth should be. Returning to snipping from the article: The Internet is not the forum for halakhic rows. Rabbinic tradition prescribes that halakhic disputes be conducted in depth, not superficially through "virtual" statements in cyberspace. Proper procedure dictates that rabbinic forums be held where differences of opinions can be [19]discussed face to face. If that is not possible, then [20]scholarly books are written or [21]rabbinic articles published. Alarmist attempts to create fear among innocent lay-people cannot be considered credible halakhic writing. And: [I]t is not for naught that the Mishnah directs us to choose who is our rabbi: [24]aseh lekha rav. It is your responsibility as a God-fearing Jew to determine which rabbi you will follow, according to your perception of his righteousness, scholarship, and derekh--philosophy of Jewish life. For a variety of reasons, it should be a rabbi who lives in the same community as you, not least since he would then be familiar with the challenges and facts of your life. In the United States, the Rabbinical Council of America has assembled an impressive body of rabbinic figures... Visible links ... 19. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-plea-from-Jerusalem-to-the-worlds-Orthodox-rabbis-483210 20. https://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%94.html?id=FpsqQwAACAAJ 24. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en My first stab at answering my own question is to wonder how long halakhah has been centralized around a few globally known gedolim. >From the geonim until the late 19th century, were there any? And even when there was a few posqim the whole world turned to (eg the geonim), how many question did they go to the gedolim for? Wouldn't the size of the world back then mean that most questions were far more local, with the mara de'asra having much more of a final say, with consensus being more of a regional thing? If halachic authority is being decentralized, is that something new, or a reversion to the norm, to how non-Sanhedrin (or as the Rambam would have it, post-talmudic) halakhah supposed to work? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:19:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:32:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170728203214.GA6178@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:38:18AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and : historical... But not the fantastical ones. Zev and I are arguing over two things: 1- What that includes. Zev believes that the inclusion of miracles does not make a medrash fantastical. And in fact to believe so be apiqursus. (Actually, Zev said the believer would be an apiqoreis; but the question whether every believer in apiqursus is necessarily an apiqoreis is far afield. So I'll still to this less controversial subset of his claim.) I disagree. The Rambam associates nissim with nevu'ah. Someone who lacks the yedi'ah to get one isn't going to be around to witness the other. Therefore, aggadic stories of miracles placed after Tanakh are fantastical. While Hashem could still in principle perform nissim, the Rambam believes He wouldn't. (Even when the story is told of a member of chazal and their level of ruach haqodesh.) 2- Is there a default? Zev understands that the default is to take a medrash historically, unless it must be ruled out. Again, I disagree. Medrashim are described as metaphors and riddles. The story and its historical content just isn't an issue. You can't assume anything about a medrash being historical or ahistorical qua medrash. A good bit of history and a good tall tale can be used equally well for teaching by metaphor. Implying, you would need outside reason to assume one or the other. Which is how the Rambam then says that if the story doesn't fit how the world works physically, metaphysicall or theologically -- ie what that translation I googled up called "fantastic" -- insisting its historical when it can't be is silly. So: : Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are : other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could : attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Be happy, no one in this conversation does. In my understanding of Zev's view, the Rambam says that any medrash that isn't impossible (and nissim are possible) should be assumed to be historical. In my view, wondering about the historicity of the story misses the whole point of medrash. But if the story does not fit the way Hashem runs the universe -- which according to the Rambam would include miracle stories happening after Malakhi, and many of the stories before -- assume it is ahistorical. : early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at : the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for : any other reason than to understand the historical facts. The Rambam there has outside reason to believe that medrashic description; it fit what the Nabatean Agriculture implied abot the birth of their religion. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:00:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 05:00:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: True, especially in the MO/DL world. The site had an article a few months ago about how the MO/DL simply aren't looking for gedolim or they define the role of a gadol in way that strips him of much of this supposed authority. Ben On 7/28/2017 10:19 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 14:51:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From ?Religion Within Reason? by Steven Cahn: ?To have > faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes > beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . It depends on what he means by "putting aside" one's doubts. If "putting aside" means that one does have doubts, but denies this fact, and acts as if his faith was complete, this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and in general, A Bad Thing. It is comparable to one who feigns humility; the odds of an eventual implosion are too high. Rather, one must be honest about his doubts or questions, and work on resolving them. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:12:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Math behind kulan chayav Message-ID: <20170730031250.GA2671@aishdas.org> "Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince." Lachlan J. Gunn, et al. Proceedings of The Royal Society A. To be published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00900 Magazine article on said paper (H/T R/Dr Josh Backon): https://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html This paper focuses on the case of identifying a criminal in a police line-up, archeological evidence, and crypography testing, but I'll just use the first as an example. Sometimes a line-up is like picking out an apple out of a group of bananas. But usually, there is measurable probability of error. Whether it's 48% for a criminal who runs through the crime scene or the probability of mistaking one's kidnapper, there is always some probability of error. Now, what's the probability that no one makes that error? If 10 people unanimously identify the same person, is it more likely that no one made the rror, or that there is a systemic bias leading people to select the same member of the line-up? This paper shows the math (and has plots for various probabilities of error). It takes far fewer people than you'd think before a unanimous finding becomes suspicious. And the paper even cites the din as precedent: However, this is not necessarily the case and more confirmations can surprisingly disimprove our confidence that the defendant has been correctly identified as the perpetrator. This type of possibility was recognised intuitively in ancient times. Under ancient Jewish law [13], one could not be unanimously convicted of a capital crime -- it was held that the absence of even one dissenting opinion among the judges indicated that there must remain some form of undiscovered exculpatory evidence. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 07:48:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20). I am attending a Bris on Tisha B'Av. May I say "Mazal Tov" to the baby's father? If I meet a sick person on Tisha B'Av, may I wish him a "Refuah Shleimah" (a full recovery)? Are these also prohibited forms of greeting? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l rules that Mazal Tov for a recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B'Av since it is considered a blessing and not a greeting (Dirshu M.B. Beiurim and Musofim 554:63 citing Halichos Shlomo Bein HaMitzorim Vol. 15 Orchos Halacha 30). However, if at all possible, one should wait for a different day to express this Mazal Tov (Chut Sheini Vol. 2 p. 327). Our minhag is to perform a Bris on Tisha B'Av after the Kinos are completed, even if it is before Chatzos (mid-day), because of Zerizim makdimim l'Mitzvos, those who serve Hashem with alacrity, do mitzvos as quickly as possible (Mechaber, Rama 559:7 and Mishna Berurah ibid s.k. 26). Rav Shlomo Zalman was of the opinion that one can certainly say "Mazal Tov" at the Bris even before Chatzos (ibid). Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l however rules that the Mazal Tov for the Bris should only be said after Chatzos (Dirshu M.B. ibid citing Shmaitza D'Moshe p. 431). Although "Sholom Aleichim" should not be said to an Avel (one who is in mourning), the Gesher HaChaim (21:67:7) permits wishing "Refuah Shleima" to an Avel who is ill, since this is considered a blessing and not a greeting. For the same reason it is permitted on Tisha B'Av to wish a "Refuah Shleima" to a person who is ill (Dirshu M.B. ibid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 10:24:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:48pm GMT, Professor L. Levine quoted today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis: : Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" : "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend : is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20)... I'm going to use this to share the quick thought in my most recent blog post: The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. Tzom qal! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 11:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 31/07/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say > "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the > table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time that day is a fast rather than a yomtov. Though we still hold out hope that that was last year. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time : that day is a fast rather than a yomtov... That was obviously my intent. HOWEVER... We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent ge'ulah. So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust. After all, a commemoration of the ge'ulah after Galus Edom would be far more compelling. (I mentioned this to someone after Maariv, and he suggested that since neither July or August line up with our months that well, maybe it'll be Tish'ah beLeo. I don't think it has the same commemorative quality.) -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 03:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Menuchah Schwat via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. > So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it > Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust... Tisha baChamishi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 06:27:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 8/1/2017 6:01 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used to be a day of mourning?" Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 08:40:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:27:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: :> We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent :> ge'ulah. ... : Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which : is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha : B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used : to be a day of mourning?" What's that "um" about? The month names being Babylonian is a given sitting behind the sentence you quote. It's an often referred to Y-mi, RH 1:2 (vilna 6a) "De'amar R' Chanina: shemos chadashim alu beyadam miBavel." Then going on to mention some pre-Bavli month names found in Tanakh - Risanim, Bul, Ziv, showing how that all changes in Nechemia and Esther. Sure, when talking about 9 beAv the fast, we may well teach them we called it 9 beAv. But, as I suggested in the OP, maybe after the ge'ulah from Galus Edom, we'll do the same with the Julian / Gregorian month names. It will, after all, be a much more momentus ge'ulah, being final and lasting. If Anshei Keneses haGedolah thought it was appropriate to commemorate one ge'ulah in this manner, perhaps we should assume al achas kamah vekamah the end of our current galus would be commemorated similarly. On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:01:50PM +0300, Menuchah Schwat wrote: : Tisha baChamishi That's ambiguous. The chumash uses "bachodesh" to be clearer about which is the day count, and which is the month. Even if the month number is a cardinal ("-i" - fifTH) and the day is an ordinal (no suffix) the way you wrote them. You don't explain *why* you think we'd go back to the biblical system, rather than commemorating the ge'ulah from Galus Edom. After all, even the nevi'im didn't stick to the original numbered months. And I think my suggested parallel makes /some/ sense, if not necessarily what the Sanhedrin will end up deciding. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kinos: Hashem as Spaceman? In-Reply-To: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In Kinah #7 (Aholi Asher Ta'avta), the Kalir wrote "v'nihyeita ketas bechalal". To our ears this evokes images of loneliness and isolation, of someone surrounded by vacuum, light-years from anywhere and anyone, but what did "chalal" even mean to people with a Ptolemaic model (if that) of the universe? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:34:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 14:34:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av Message-ID: I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana ---------------------- I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it even is one), I think you are doing OK! -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 15:04:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <187d2f.769a1cbd.46b254d0@aol.com> From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah " >> There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. << Kol tuv, Ilana >>>>>> What you did instinctively was the right thing to do. Here is what Eliyahu Kitov says in _The Book of Our Heritage_: --quote-- It is prohibited to greet one's friend or acquaintance on Tisha B'Av, and it is even prohibited to say "Good morning." If, however, one is greeted, he should answer in a low tone, in order not to arouse resentment." --end quote-- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 21:51:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:51:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed Message-ID: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand that not everyone agrees with this position). Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can determine where the issur actually is? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 23:57:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB, quoting Rachel Levmore: > Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox > Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. > Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, > Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef were still alive and active. And if someone writes a similar article in another few decades, perhaps some of today's great poskim will have been added posthumously to the list... Not to be cynical, but could it be that one of the factors that makes a gadol universally recognized and accepted across Orthodoxy is that he is no longer among the living? Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 04:18:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:18:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed In-Reply-To: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> References: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 02/08/17 00:51, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har > Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess > information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can > certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand > that not everyone agrees with this position). > > Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur > karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can > determine where the issur actually is? *Any* case where we got new information. Take the classic case of two pieces of fat, one shuman and one chelev, but one doesn't know which is which, and then one later finds out. Before finding out both were assur; if one ate one of them beshogeg one brings an asham and the other piece remains assur. Once the new information is acquired the shuman becomes permitted, and if it transpired that one ate the chelev one must now bring a chatas. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 05:07:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from the OU: > The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra > Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as > greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" > (Mechaber 554:20). ... ... > > Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l rules that Mazal Tov for a > recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B?Av since it is > considered a blessing and not a greeting. ... ... I honestly don't understand the distinction that causes a "greeting" to be assur, while allowing a "blessing" to be mutar. I would think that "good morning" is a blessing. Aren't we praying that the other person's morning will be a good one? Perhaps the distinction is in the degree of kavana with which the "good morning" is given and received. After all, if it were said as a blessing, and received as one, then wouldn't we respond to the "good morning" with something like "amen"? Perhaps we can prove "good morning" to be a mere greeting, by pointing out that the response is usually a perfunctory repeat of the words "good morning", rather than anything serious. In this light, I confidently suggest that "How are you?" is definitely a greeting, because usually no one expects a response other than "okay" or "fine". What of the Mechaber's halacha of "Shalom Aleichem"? Surely we would agree that "Shalom Aleichem" is a blessing, no? After all, the response to "Shalom Aleichem" is "Aleichem Shalom", and I suspect (YMMV) that this is usually sincere rather than perfunctory. This brings us to the very core of this halacha: RSZA is drawing a line between greeting and blessing, and his halacha about Mazel Tov makes no sense (to me) unless "Shalom Aleichem" is defined as the prototypical *greeting*, and *not* a blessing. I can't imagine why this would be so, unless the Mechaber already felt that "Shalom Aleichem" was usually said perfunctorially. And that's sad. Can anyone offer a different analysis of these various phrases? Finally, it seems to me that "perfunctory" is a good summary of why we can bring American money into a bathroom, despite the words "In God We Trust" being on them: Those words have become a mere perfunctory slogan, and are no longer a real statement of faith. But if we have downgraded "Shalom Aleichem" from blessing to greeting with that same logic, then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? Do any other poskim make this distinction (either in Hilchos Tish'a B'av, or in Hilchos Aveilus, or for that matter in Hilchos What Not To Do Before Shacharis) between a greeting and a blessing? I'd love to see it defined more clearly. (There was a point in my life when if I'd sneeze and someone would say "God bless you", my response was "Amen". But I stopped that fairly quickly as people tended to find my response quite jarring. Maybe "God bless you" is also in the category of a perfunctory greeting that should not be done on Tish'a B'av?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 06:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170802132730.GB27820@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:57:08AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack : of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef : were still alive and active... In the US, recognition of R' Henkin and RMF were near-universal. And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. In Israel, I think the most recent candidates are pre-Shas ROY and RSZA. Although ROY's pesaqim are distinctly Sepharadi, I think it's commonly accepted that Yabia Omer is one of the few sefarim written in my lifetime people will be learning centuries from now. My mention of pre-Shas points to something I think is one of the causes. The search for "daas Torah" on political and societal matters makes enemies and cynics from among those who disagree. As for RSZA, RALichtenstein notes that he posessed a gedulah different in kind, not just degree [inevitable nisqatnu hadoros], than those we've looked up to since. I highly recommend "Im Da'at Ein, Manhigut Minayin?" . In it RAL defends da'as Torah as a doctrine, but questions if anyone since RSZA has been qualified to have it. To quote my own pitgam from past posts: A gadol is tall enough to see over our fences. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 09:05:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Eleazar Hakalir Message-ID: Yesterday during the fast, I was reading about R. Eleazar Hakalir, and was struck by the fact that historians aren't sure when he lived, with some saying he lived during Mishnaic times and others saying he lived as late as the 11th century. I realize that pinpointing dates during this time period is difficult, but a 900 year swing seems very unusual. Is anyone familiar with any recent papers or articles that attempts to zero in on the real date when this poet lived? Any additional info appreciated. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 18:25:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170803012513.GC16841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: :> I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, :> but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk :> hurting his feelings. : I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it : even is one), I think you are doing OK! I am wondering whether cheerfully (rather than pro-forma, yotzei-zain, replying so as not to offend) greeting someone in this situation despite 9 beAv is an instance of huterah or dekhuyah. (Thus overanalyzing your parenthetic remark.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 4 13:52:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: ?A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha *minyanim* questioned my saying "*y'yasheir kochacha*" to one of the *olim* (FWIW, I was the *bal qorei*) and, a few min.s later, brought to the *bimah* an Artscroll-*dinim* paragraph (from the back of its 9Av *siddur*) about not greeting someone; my response, as you might guess, was that "*y'yasheir* /*yeeshar kochacha*" was not a greeting. A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "*Shalom aleichem*", like M'gilas Rus' "*H' imachem* // *y'varechcha H'*", is also a blessing, but the "problem"? comes up when it's utilized as a greeting. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 5 23:33:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:33:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and fish blood? we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking liquid and almond milk? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within > their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 04:29:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <221F9E1E-C833-4DA1-83A2-577056D221BF@cox.net> R? Akiva wrote: ?.then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? I would say the reason is that Shalom is one of God?s Names. There was once a study done on people?s responses to ?How are you?? The respondent was supposed to answer in the negative. So instead of saying ?fine, thank you,? the response would be either ?terrible,? ?awful,? ?not good,? etc. and guess what? Something like 90% would not even have realized the negative response. In other words, it is very perfunctory when someone greets someone else in a normal setting. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 09:55:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table > and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher > but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. > What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and > fish blood? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? > we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table > at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond > milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking > liquid and almond milk? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring white milk looking liquid to the meaty dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? I suspect that in both cases, you are noting the explicit prohibition against doing these things and then you are presuming that these prohibitions apply *only* to these specific foods. Then, having made that presumption, you are asking why this distinction exists. I suggest that this is an improper procedure. It would be more correct to note the prohibition about these specific things, and then to *ASK* whether the prohibition also applies to similar things. You might find that the prohibition *does* extend to other things: Example #2: Soy milk. When pareve coffee creamers first became easily available, they were all soy-based. Yet the hashgachos warned us to serve it only in the original container, precisely because of the halacha you cite. Example #1: Suppose you have a lightly-cooked steak in your plate. Some "red blood looking liquid" is leaking out of the meat onto the plate, and is absorbed into the mashed potatoes. There's no issur against those potatoes. I'm pretty sure you can even mix it up into the potatoes deliberately, or dip your bread into it and eat it. But can you pour it out of the plate, into a glass and *drink* it? I don't know. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 13:44:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Lecture from Herzog Yemei Iyun Message-ID: <25bb89bf-b093-17da-6af7-7c80276a5d1a@zahav.net.il> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXeFDdchKY One of the lectures at this year's Yemei Iyun at Herzog: Rav Bazaq (Har Etzion) and Rav Kashtiel (Yeshivat Eli) explain a story in Nach (Isha HaShunamite) each in his way. In doing so, they try to demonstrate the differences in approach between what is called "Tanach b'Gova Einayim" and "HaKav". According to a story that I read about this lecture, this was the first time, after years and years of fighting (sometimes extremely fierce fighting) between proponents of each approach, that two people got together and gave a lesson together. There have been conferences where each side explains why their approach is good and the other side is wrong, but this is the first time that two people taught together. The lectures are in conversational Hebrew. Besides the demonstration of the different approaches, the lectures themselves about the story are fantastic. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 22:20:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:20:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom haAtzamut. Ben On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Micha Berger wrote: > >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. > > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? > > Akiva Miller \ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 07:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> References: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170807140514.GC15062@aishdas.org> : On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > R' Micha Berger wrote: : >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within : >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. : > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom : haAtzamut. I knew he was capable of it because I know several such stories. In the future, try to remember everything I wrote over all of Avodah's 19 years' history. It would save me time. I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning something that non-intuitive. Including when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 18:45:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:45:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with > the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning > something that non-intuitive. I was trying to come up with a snappy comeback, but the truth is that I simply have a rotten memory. Or, perhaps, the non-intuitive stuff is lost more easily, precisely because the anti-intuitiveness makes it more difficult for the brain to reconstruct the chain of links. We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. > when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. > RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if > it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." I wish I had been aware of these shades of gray when I was younger. Thank you for sharing. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 07:29:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:54PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is : how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is : the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult : to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical reasons given: 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish model.) 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the community. (The usual Chassidish model.) 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from DT in general when he left Agudah.) #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and not necessarily personal ones. Here we're talking about halakhah. So, I'd like to see if we can discuss the flipside of the discussion. Rather than asking about the heteronomy of following gedolei haposqim and why today's posqim seem to be failing getting that kind of fealty from certain large segments of the masses, what about the autonomy end? We have a very literate masses. More people can hit the primary sources themselves. And for those who can't, oir lack the patience to, there are more secondary and tertiary sources available in laaz than ever before. Joys of computerized publishing, which has made producing a book cheaper than ever. In this world, how much autonomy should a sho'el assume for himself? Which questions don't need asking? I presume a wide variety of opinion; I am more interested in various rationales than in any particular answer. What about the LOR -- do you have thoughts about when he should field the question, and when he should punt to his own rav or to a gadol? And does the ease at which anyone can be reached anywhere on the globe matter? Universal education, telecom, the web's ability to provide instand "research" are all bottom-up reasons our authority is being decentralized. With little to do on those elegable to assume that authority vs those of the past. Although the ease of LH and motzi sheim ra about those rabbanim with today's tech does enter into it to, r"l. If no one can become a navi in his childhood neighborhood, today's world makes it harder and harder to leave that effect. My own feeling is that anyone of East European ancestry who was not higi'ah lehora'ah who faces a new (for them) situation and doesn't get a sense of consensus from the Chayei Adam, Qitzur, MB and AhS should be asking a she'eilah. Notice that shows my own bias against popularist guides. Unless said guide was written by or recommended by one's poseiq as a viable resource. And in terms of autonomy vs heteronomy, I would be seeking a poseiq who (1) convinces me of the soundness of his reasoning; and (2) is willing to work with my givens on things like hashkafah and beliefs about metzi'us, where there are no rules of pesaq. As in RMF's pesaq about Hallel on YhA. (Tangent: Notice that there is little connection between pesaq and hashkafah on this one. RYBS, the Zionist, adhered to a meta-halakhah in which the barriers to saying Hallel are high, and came out against. As a compromise for LORs whose mispallelim won't tolerate that, he would advise the rav to pasqen that they omit the berakhah. Whereas RMF told Zionists that leshitasam, it would be appropriate to say Hellal WITH a berakhah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 08:45:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Kashrus of Braekel Message-ID: <20170808154508.GA12433@aishdas.org> They're now importing to EY from Europe a new breed of chicken, the braekel. See http://www.baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=37&ARTICLE_ID=90778 ... Members of the Eida Charedis' Vaad Shechita, prominent rabbonim and kashrus experts gathered in the home of Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita to determine if a new chicken, imported from Europe, has a kosher status. The discussion lasted for four hours! The new bird is called Braekel, and according to HaGaon HaRav Sternbuch, the bird is not kosher. However, in Bnei Brak, HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita has ruled it is kosher. The chicken was raised in Europe in an area void of Jews and Rav Sternbuch feels it lacks the `mesora' required. Wikipedia reports that it is indeed Gallus gallus domesticus, actual chicken in scientific taxonomy. And The Brakel is not cultivated for its meat, but merely for its egg-laying qualities. The breed is capable of producing 180 to 200 white eggs a year. This isn't remotely like the leghorn, a breed of chicken that has 2 "thumbs" and 2 other toes per claw, rather than the usual for kosher birds -- 1 "thumb" and 3. And it's accepted as kosher, in fact, the source of most of our eggs here in the states. But the breakel has normal simanim. For that matter, according to some pesaqim about why we can eat turkey (the context in which the kashrus of leghorn chickens most often comes up) we even accept Meleagris gallopavo, turkey, as being within the mesorah for chickens and they aren't even in the same genus! Third wiki-note, commenting on the two subtypes of braekel chicken that have since interbread into one: In the UK, USA and Australia, however, one can still find descendants of the Kempische Brakel under its old name 'Campine'. The Campine has evolved differently from the Brakel. The most noticeable difference is the hen-feathering of the rooster and the lower weight. We in the US are treating a bird that evolved (nishtanah hateva, if you prefer) from the breakel as kosher; no one requires checking if an egg is campine or not. It's not even like the mesorah has been silent; even if each breed of G. gallus domesticus needs it's own mesorah. So, lo zakhisi lehavin RMS's reluctance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 09:27:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> References: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <69647634-1f0b-8686-3b9b-f1fe2958ab37@sero.name> On 08/08/17 10:29, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning > to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical > reasons given: > > 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and > ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish > model.) > > 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the > community. (The usual Chassidish model.) > > 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would > ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to > Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the > current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and > doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, > and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from > DT in general when he left Agudah.) > > #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and > not necessarily personal ones. #4 All true knowledge is in the Torah, and finding it is a matter of making non-obvious connections. Therefore someone who has absorbed enough of it to do so can find the correct answer to anything, though he may not be able to explain how he did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 12:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hebrew manuscripts Message-ID: A database of ancient Hebrew manuscripts is now available at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLIS/en/ManuScript/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 18:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel Message-ID: . This past October (in Avodah 34:130) I mentioned a practice that I've seen growing in recent years, that of making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. I was learning about the issur of eating a large seudah on Erev Shabbos, and I came across something that seems very relevant to that practice. Form the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod Hashabbos" writes: "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 21:21:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:21:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142a02db-9198-65c3-9f5d-1b882fc5f525@sero.name> On 08/08/17 21:24, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of > appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, > making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." However, "to`ameha chayim zachu". Tasting a little of the Shabbos dishes, as opposed to gorging oneself on them, is very much kevod Shabbos, to increase the anticipation, like a sneak preview. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 11:58:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the : reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with : which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod : Hashabbos" writes: : "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of : appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, : making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." These motives have a nadka mina. If one fills up Fri afternoon on food they don't enjoy (perhaps it's healthful) or wouldn't eat in a formal or celebratory setting, one is running afoul of the SA's sevara, but not the PM's. In contrast, having significant amounts of Shabbos-appropriate food but not to the point of ruining one's appetite by the time maariv is over would be a problem according to the PM, but not the SA's sevara. Zev mentioned the case of tasting Shabbos food. The MB 250:2 uses the word "lit'om". The Machzor Vitri cites a lost Y-mi and invokes "to'ameha chaim zakhu" -- I think it's specifically te'imah. As in, less than a kezayis, no berakhah, not really eating. (Which is why I wrote last paragraph about "significant amounts".) It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. BUT.... The whole point of chulent is to have hot food in Shabbos lunch, to fulfill the obligation (SA OC 271:3) of making it the more special meal. (Rather than Fri night dinner. See Shaarei Teshuvah #1.) The AhS says one is not obligated to abstain from special Shabbos-lunch foods Fri night. But I'm talking about Thu night, altogether before Shabbos. O Seems to me that until someone finds a new "special Shabbos lunch food", Thu night chulent ought to be prohibited! Whereas one SHOULD just taste the chulent on Fri, and it is permitted (but sub-optimal) to have some with Fri night dinner. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 22:14:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:14:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Not just yeshiva guys. It has become a minor trendy thing for all sort of people to travel to Bnei Braq to get chulent. On 8/9/2017 8:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". > My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and > Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment > near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 04:43:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (=?utf-8?B?157XoNeV15fXlCDXqdeR15g=?= via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: The Mishna Brura clearly states that the reason for tasting on erev shabbat is "kedei letaken". This refers to tasting during the cooking process and does not fit with the whole kugel minhag. Menucha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 11:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] publishing trends Message-ID: I'd love to hear any analysis (or guesses) as to what are the percentages of different types of sefarim (both Hebrew and English) being published in the current era, how they differ from those in the past and, most interestingly to me, what are the drivers for these trends? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 15:37:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:37:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Milk, Blood and look alikes Message-ID: I fear that the Halachic posture of *Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to?* although making sense from a narrow perspective, actually invites Halachic disaster, and is quite incorrect. Halacha asserts all is permitted unless it is prohibited. Here is an example in which the Shach seems to assert that Maris Ayin is limited to its narrow description and is not to be expanded according to what makes sense to us. BP, those that have been found within a Shechted cow, require Shechita once they have walked about. Before they have walked about they do not require Shechita. However, Ben PeKuAh can also be created via natural breeding which goes on forever. So we can have a large herd of BP none of which are identifiable as BP. The Mechaber Paskens without qualifying, *until they have walked about* - that the naturally born BP all require Shechita. This would appear to suggest that they require Shechita even before they have walked about. And there is good reason to understand this to be the Halacha, after all in this herd there is absolutely no way to identify them as BP whereas those found in a Shechted mother are readily identified as being BP. And I presume that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, the Shach makes it clear that the decree that requires that they be Shechted applies only after they have walked about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 11 07:15:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Summer and Travel Videos Message-ID: <1502460917652.98832@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y8drmxm3 Kosher Summer and Travel Videos As you prepare to fire up the grill for the summer or hit the road on vacation, countless Kashrut issues arise: Can I cook on a public grill in a park? Can I use a hotel room microwave? How should one pray on an airplane? These commonly asked questions and many more will be answered in our 2017 Kosher summer and travel series. Your esteemed guide through this halachic journey? It's none other than Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of OU Kosher. View the questions and answers below! Can you cook on a BBQ that has previously been used for Non-Kosher meat? Can meat and fish be cooked on the same BBQ? Can you eat cut fruit from an uncertified vendor? Can you buy coffee from a non-kosher establishment or a kiosk? May you purchase salad from an uncertified entity when traveling on the road? What products am I permitted to eat from an ice cream store? What are the Halachos in regards to prayer on an airplane? What are the Kashrut issues with airline meals? Can in-room hotel microwaves be used without kashering? Is it permissible to take antihistamines or other medication without certification? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 13 06:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] piskei rid Message-ID: <591d6b28af34484fac75d4f2918958a9@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The bar ilan database notes that its version is from Yad Ha-Rav Herzog. Does anyone have a copy that can see who authored the footnotes? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 02:06:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 07:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken Message-ID: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. See the above URL for more. See also http://tinyurl.com/yckl2bqj YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 08:23:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From > http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h > Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that > he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. Since when is rabbi M any sort if authority in The USA? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 11:28:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:28:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> This whole thing reminds me of the one-a-generation broohaha over leghorn chickens. Leghorns and braekels are chickens, much the way chihuahuas are dogs, despire being rather unique looking dogs -- or chickens. Like other chickens, they are Gallus gallus domesticus. Not even a remote question of problems interbreeding. Every 20 years or so someone notices that the leghorn chicken has two "thumbs" pointing back, and two toes pointing forward, rather than the usual 3-and-1 we expect for kosher birds. And yet, white leghorns make beautifully white eggs, and so it is the breed most American chicken eggs come from. Actually, both it and the braekel chicken do indeed grab the perch in a 2-and-2 grip, once comfortably on it, they go to the 3-and-1 of the rest of the species. And like the leghorn chicken, the braekel chicken is a source of eggs in the US. However, not under the name "braekel". But America's campine chicken, which has the same kind of foot, was breed from the Kempishe Breakel. The question was resolved quite a while ago, which is why we in the US don't have to chase down which breed of chicken an egg came from. So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was raised, we were about to assur, and then it was found that in much of the world zebu was already being eaten as cow. And in fact, MOST tefillin made from gasos are zebu leather! The breakel, which is a normal enough part of the general chicken gene pool to get the usual taxonomical name -- Gallus gallus domesticus. But there are two subspecies of cow: those without a hump between their shoulder are Bos taurus taurus. Those that have such a hump, eg zebu, are Bos taurus indicus. But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can interbreed and produce fertile young, in which case how did any of these questions get started? The mesorah for chickens must therefore include oddballs of the min like leghorn, braekel and campine breeds, and that for cows must include the full min, both subspecies. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 13:42:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <692953b1-38ed-f530-7beb-1656bdc7942d@sero.name> On 14/08/17 14:28, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was > raised, we were about to assur, Very few were about to asser, because the view that a mesorah is needed for mammals is very much a daas yochid. > But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can > interbreed and produce fertile young This is true for mammals, not necessarily for birds. I'd put a different argument: Let's suppose that it *is* a new min, for which no mesorah can exist because it didn't exist until relatively recently. For that very reason we can be 100% certain that it isn't one of the 24 listed species, and therefore doesn't need a mesorah. And if it's *not* a new min then it's a chicken, and once again kosher (except according to Anan ben David y"sh). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 06:36:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:36:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn't this an issue, since they are using less than a revi'is (approximately 3.3 oz. - minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber's question) A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi'is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi'is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi'is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m'lo lugmav (half a revi'is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 14:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170815214945.GA13601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including :> the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha :> follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a :> shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow :> their minhag. Regardless of the shei'ur, so this is perhaps tangential.... The AhS talks about the difficulty in obtaining real wine, the kashrus of "wine" from soaked raisins, and thus the schnapps option. I wonder if so many rabbeim would have insisted on making qiddush on schnapps at all if wine were an affordable option where they lived. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 15:24:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: . R' Ben Waxman asked: > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot > right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the > members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset > on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the > right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine > no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose > money? My first thought is that this is a great example of a question that should be addressed to the rav of the beit knesset. There are so many factors that need to be weighed against each other, such as how badly the shul needs the money, and how many hurt feelings will be created by giving the wrong answer. As regards the comment "a sale is a sale" -- I'm not so sure. Sounds like a "davar shelo ba laolam" to me. Especially since we are considering the real possibility that a kohen guest might show up, rendering the auction questionable. Just my two grush. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 02:54:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Use of Stone Keilim During Bayis Sheini Message-ID: <20170816095450.GA3826@aishdas.org> See http://www.timesofisrael.com/2000-year-old-stone-workshop-discovered-near-where-jesus-turned-water-into-wine or http://j.mp/2v1gxan The Times of Israel By Amanda Borschel-Dan August 10, 2017, 11:51 am 2,000-year-old stone workshop discovered near where Jesus turned water into Only four Second Temple stoneware production centers have been unearthed in Israel Because it was immune to ritual impurity, the use of stoneware was rife among Jews during the Roman era ... A large 2,000-year-old Second Temple period chalkstone quarry and workshop was discovered at Reina in lower Galilee by a team of archaeologists headed by Dr. Yonatan Adler... A manmade chalkstone quarry cave was recently discovered between between Nazareth and the village of Kana. What is unique in this excavation is the additional find of a stoneware workshop -- one of only four in Israel. Although pottery was also in use during this period, archaeological digs around the region point to an uptick in stoneware during the Second Temple period -- likely for ritual purity reasons, as attested in the Talmud. "In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee also used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone," said Adler. ... "According to ancient Jewish ritual law, vessels made of pottery are easily made impure and must be broken. Stone, on the other hand, was thought to be a material which can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce some of their everyday tableware from stone," he said. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 04:45:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:45:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh Message-ID: . At first, I was going to pose these nitpicky questions on our Mesorah list. But then I found some answers, and I decided to share my journey with the whole chevra. If it doesn't put you to sleep from boredom, please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Shmos 1:10 - Paro starts panicking over the Jewish Problem. First, they're multiplying, and then, "ki sikrena milchama..." 1. What is the root of Sikrena? Kuf resh aleph, or kuf resh heh? 2a. If it is kuf resh heh - "if war happens" - then what is the aleph for? Is this a kri/ksiv situation? Does anyone explicitly refer to it as a kri/ksiv? 2b. If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? Why does every single translation and peirush render it as "if war occurs", or similar? Or do you know of any exceptions that I couldn't find? 3. What form is this word? My guess is that it is Kal, future, 3rd person feminine plural: "They(f) will...". That fits well with "proclaim", if "they(f)" refers to the attacking nations. But if the root is kuf resh heh, I don't know why the plural would be used. Is "milchama" some sort of plural or collective noun? Other relevant information: RSR Hirsch says that "sikrena" is a plural form, and therefore "milchama" is probably not the subject but the object. for the word's meaning, he refers us to Yeshaya 41:22, where this same word occurs. But as I see it, these words are not spelled the same: Where Shemos spells it with an aleph, Yeshaya has a yud. (I suppose Rav Hirsch considers this difference insignificant, but I'm not knowledgable enough to understand why.) I did find one lone voice who says that the root of "sikrena" is "read/call" and not "happen/occur". Namely, Mandelkern's Concordance. Yeshaya 41:22 appears on 1047d, in the root kuf-resh-heh. But he places our pasuk, Shemos 1:10, on 1043c, in the root kuf-resh-aleph. Another data point from Mandelkern: His opinion is that "sikrena" in Shemos 1:10 is a third-person plural verb. This is different from the second-person plural verb, which is spelled exactly the same, and appears in Rus 1:20 and 1:21, and in the Concordance on 1042a. I suspect that Mandelkern would endorse "*they* will proclaim war" as a correct translation. Finally, I tried a non-Jewish website devoted to translation issues. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7122.htm is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, and other similar sources. I probably could have gotten the same information from Mandelkern, but seeing their English translation on-screen made these examples jump out at me: Bereshis 42:4 - [Yaakov] said, "Lest disaster *happen* [to Binyamin]." Bereshis 49:1 - Yaakov said, "... I will tell you what will *happen* to you at the end of days." Vayikra 10:19 - Aharon told Moshe, "... such has *happened* to me..." Devarim 22:6 - When you *happen* upon a bird's nest... In all of the above, the Torah's word is spelled with a kuf-resh-ALEPH root. I find myself forced to concede that there is strong evidence (dare I call it "proof"?) that in addition to the usual meanings "read" and "call", kuf-resh-aleph can also mean "happen". Having said that, I was tempted to take this even farther. That page on BibleHub brings a lot examples where they translate kuf-resh-aleph as "meet". At first glance, I did not take it seriously; I felt that our common translation as "call" was more appropriate. For example, Shemos 5:3. where Moshe and Aharon tell Paro, "The God of the Hebrews nikra to us, so let us go for three days..." In my mind, this meant "Hashem called to us", and I rejected BibleHub's translation of "... has met with us." But then I read ("happened upon"? pun intended!) ArtScroll's translation, which is "...happened upon us." I was surprised by this, but I was even more surprised when I saw RSR Hirsch on this pasuk, where he tells us to look at Shemos 3:18, where he shows that these two roots (kuf resh aleph and kuf resh heh) are indeed similar. And so I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to translate Shemos 1:10 as "when a war happens". Does all this teach us anything about the small aleph in Vayikra 1:1? I leave that as an exercize for the reader. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 10:41:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish > or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? I don't think "proclaiming war" is something that can even happen in Hebrew. One can call *for* war, but the lamed is necessary. I can't think of any direct examples right now, but consider the parallel "vekarasa eleha leshalom". On the other hand we do have "ukrasem deror". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:25:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected cohen guest is the only option. If it is the aliyah itself which is sold then the cohen should be able to claim the shul had no right to sell it, and the choshen mishpat shailah is whether the shul or the buyer takes the loss. Obviously just my opinion not meant to second guess the mara d'atra. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? > > If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? > > If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:34:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:18 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I wonder if everyone agrees with the Machstzis Hashekel, i.e., would everyone agree that if you hold like the Taz the you can make kiddush on it? I was startled by the conclusion until I realized that "their minhag" refers to their own minhag, the the minhag of the Rebbes mentioned in the previous sentence. Still odd though, surely this is a psak halacha not a minhag. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn?t this an issue, since they are using less than a revi?is (approximately 3.3 oz. ? minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber?s question) > A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi?is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi?is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. > > Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi?is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m?lo lugmav (half a revi?is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. > > Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 15:22:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502922161954.91323@stevens.edu> Please see the article sent to me by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky that I have posted at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 04:55:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate Message-ID: A work around for agunot wanting to have kids: Rav Yitzhaq Yosef* ruled that an IVF child isn't a mamzer in a case of a married woman having her egg fertilized with the sperm of a man who who isn't her husband. Now an MK wants to use this psak to enable agunot to conceive via IVF and her kids won't have mamzerut problems (and have the treatment paid for by the state). * Yes other rabbis have given this ruling but when the Chief Rabbi gives a psak it gives a stronger basis for a knesset member to propose a law. See the article for more details (Hebrew): http://bit.ly/2uOmI6x I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A single woman is allowed to get IVF. Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 09:27:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170818162719.GF5755@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:25:19PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen : in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is : the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected : cohen guest is the only option... While I agree with that conclusion, the answer to your opening question was in RBW's post: :> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right :> after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are :> kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning... They sold the aliyah on the presumption that, as usual. And in fact, this "chazaqah" is so solid, RBS asked this eventually as a hypothetical; the wording he thought of was "were ... to come" not "when ... does come". Perhaps there was originally an al-tenai that simply people no longer remember. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:46:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818174604.GH5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:52:59PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha : minyanim questioned my saying "y'yasheir kochacha" to one of the olim ... : A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) : dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "Shalom aleichem", like M'gilas Rus' "H' : imachem // y'varechcha H'", is also a blessing, but the "problem" comes : up when it's utilized as a greeting. My rule: If said as a social pleasantry, or as a mindless playback of a recording your parents / society taught you, it's a greeting. But if you care more about whether the RBSO heard you than the person you're saying it about, it's a berakhah. And usually it's somewhere between those poles. With a skew toward the greeing end. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:02:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:02:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A : single woman is allowed to get IVF. I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei mi shelo nivra". But... This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless worse than never existing at all? (I adapted that line from arguments about aborting a fetus that tests positive for Downs. How many people with Downs hate their life so much that they regret existing?) : Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Marriage as described in Bereishis 1, perhaps. "Peru urevu umil'u es ha'aetz". But the intimacy of Bereishis 2 is not adressed "... al kein ya'azov ish es aviv ve'es imo, vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu lebasar echad". My version of "the talk" with my boys started with these two pesuqim. Explaining that relations are to serve these two functions. And also, while birth control can address one of these two, extramarital relations outside of "vedavaq be'isho" translate into exercises in weakening that bond, that gift HQBH gave us. (Adding now, as this bit would go over their heads: to approximate Adam Qadmon as humanity is described before Adam and Chavah are made from one into two.) And then, after establishing theological context, the talk continued on the usual biological and psychological planes. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 11:27:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses in Judaism Message-ID: R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/ He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American Eclipse of 2017: Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 14:10:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: . On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients. I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. > ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient > with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the > well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov > yisroel", just like many people today. And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then what did they do wrong? The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good description of it, I'd appreciate it.) The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food that even went by another name. And the very first time that they asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained. In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product. Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I wrote here 15 years ago: (http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03) > Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free > breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored > liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I > understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that > assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that > one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff, > and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap > orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice, > isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 11:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:29:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> References: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <529972d5-f946-74d5-e97e-26fbf8cbced3@starways.net> On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural > : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any > : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a > : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A > : single woman is allowed to get IVF. > > I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei > mi shelo nivra". But... I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view. > This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless > worse than never existing at all? Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 17:30:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:30:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, Cheilev and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. Is this correct? Can anyone offer some illumination? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 21:43:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4577e69b-191e-24b3-90cc-757555b83cd6@sero.name> On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... > Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I > don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at their lodgings. Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream? A grocery. >> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient >> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the >> well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov >> yisroel", just like many people today. > And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then > what did they do wrong? This is precisely the AhS's point. He strongly rejects the view of those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens when one does so. > > The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are > "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". > (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good > description of it, I'd appreciate it.) It's schmant in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet cream for coffee. Cf smetana, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour cream is zoyer shmetene. > The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to > what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food technology made everything complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel. (This is why the term "cholov stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used. RMF rejects the idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils its requirements.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 07:17:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: ' R' Zev Sero wrote: > No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type > of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in > Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least > one could before modern food technology made everything > complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to > *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, > etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. Summary: I concede. Longer version: I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as a resident of the 5700s. I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned about such things. I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the, there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly, there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them. There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in 1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the drivers for this change. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 12:04:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:04:07 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: <201708201904.v7KJ47OS022554@hsdm.com> >And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") . From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 22:11:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 01:11:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. > So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, > Cheilev > and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly > think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev. I don't know whether deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something that is identical to chelev so there is no question. (The difference may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone will think it's chelev? Obviously we don't worry about that because an observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to that conclusion?) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 08:37:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk Message-ID: . Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, but we don't hold like him. In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking, eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di" come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds. Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a - <<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds, who don't have mother's milk. >>> Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says it's d'rabanan. We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav", WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di" would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we learn from the word "imo"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 06:32:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse Message-ID: <1503322352892.87303@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 15:09:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis Message-ID: . Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads: > Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so > which bracha should be said? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for > which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the > acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and > great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. > It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. > Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe- > inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? > > Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and > Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh > Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which > are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states > that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's > sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many > commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. > As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses > are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. > > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of anyone else who comments on this question? Thanks! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 16:06:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses : > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah : > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). : : Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of : anyone else who comments on this question? The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses. The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human sin. Wholesale, not retail. The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer to the question in his words. The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who continue ignoring such signs. In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence". At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who aren't religiously moved by it. Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally used language of Wisdom and Intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 17:07:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> References: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b@sero.name> > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer > to the question in his words. That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's servant, the moon. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 04:11:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? Message-ID: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Something doesn?t add up. Every 28 years around April 8th, we recite the birkat hachama (last time, April 8th 2009, next time, April 8th 20037). Every month we recite the blessing over the moon. And as I learned, the ?oseh ma?aseh b?reshis? is over lightening but not over thunder and volcanoes. For thunder and volcanoes I thought we say ?shekocho g?vuroso malei olam.? Regarding an eclipse as an incredible and awe inspiring event, so is being in the presence of a child being born or in the presence of a person having being declared dead, resuscitated back to life. Is there a b?rocho for that? > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 07:16:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170822141651.LBEF22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> I heard a very interesting shiur at yutorah. Everything below was mentioned, plus one other thing: a great explanation of a gemara (or another Chazal) that says something like: "X" comes into the world (X might have been eclipses, or, if not, something related in some way) with four reasons: - not appropriately euglogizing an av beis din - (I can't remember) - homosexuality - the death of two brothers at once (or in battle) (He started the connection my explaining the ma'aseh of the moon's complaint against H' at creation . . . ) Here's the problem with my post: - I got to it via the "featured shiruim" on my YUTorah phone app -- and it's not there now. I went to the desktop site, and I can't seem to find it - I don't remember who it was (except that the rav who gave it over had a middle or eastern European accent) (My excuse: I went to western South Carolina to see the eclipse. The 8 hour drive home turned into almost 13 hours because of traffic, and I drove alone. I heard a lot of shiurim and my mind is pretty fuzzy . . . ) FWIW, -- Sholom At 05:40 AM 8/22/2017, via Avodah wrote: >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 >From: Zev Sero via Avodah >To: Avodah >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis >Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b at sero.name> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't > see an answer > > to the question in his words. > >That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points >out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that >eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or >moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means >that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens >is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or >mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, >even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise >and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when >Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. > >This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural >phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but >Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind >Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. > >This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry >at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them >and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't >they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it >removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun >is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's >servant, the moon. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 17:47:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:47:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness Message-ID: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> There was a discussion on Areivim about a particular person who was accused of committing a particularly evil crime. Someone posted, among other comments, ?I will add that the "rabbi" who committed these horrific acts is objectively G-dless. Apikores is too mild a term for him.? My response to this fits more for Avodah than Areivim: I know this man and most of the other players in this story. And while I haven?t interviewed him recently to test R?n TK?s assertion, it is my opinion that as reprehensible as these events are, it doesn?t mean that the person who committed them is Godless. Is any sinner Godless? More likely, a sinner like this carries around a huge measure of denial and/or conflict. But that doesn?t make him or her Godless. The Gemara says, in fact, that some sinners ? during the moment they?re sinning(!) are close to Hashem (Berachos 63a). I?ll elaborate: In truth, the argument can be made that any time a person sins he or she is Godless. Tomer Devorah in the first perek makes the contrapositive point ? that Shuras HaDin would dictate that Hashem remove himself from a person at the time of his sin, resulting in the sinner?s instant death. His response to that is that Hashem?s mercy is what keeps the person alive ? Hashem does not remove himself from the person, and keeps sustaining him or her even while he or she is sinning with the very power invested by Hashem in them that enables them to sin. But probably most times well-meaning people sin, their sin comes from one of the following three: ignorance, negligence, or lust. Ignorance: Not knowing or remembering something is forbidden. Negligence: Not caring enough to take care not to inadvertently sin. Lust: Being blinded to the evil that one is doing because of the strong desire to benefit from it. In all those cases, the person who is sinning is not thinking about Hashem. He?s ? in your terms ? ?objectively Godless.? But can he really be called that? Let?s talk about two extremes: The person who walks in front of another person who is saying Shemoneh Esrei (relatively minor), vs. the person who is not shomer negiah (relatively major). In both those cases it?s not that the person is not thinking about Hashem (which he admittedly is not), but that the person is not thinking about sin. Or, more succinctly, the person is just not thinking. Not Godless, but thought-less. And that can sum up all of the three categories ? ignorance, negligence, and lust cause people to sin by not thinking. So what happens when a person is a thinker? There are two possibilities. The person can be like Nimrod, "???? ????? ??????? ????? ??" ? he knows Hashem and doesn?t listen to him, although he recognized Hashem?s existence. That?s a plain old Rasha. But he?s not Godless ? ???? ?????. The second possibility is that that person does think about Hashem. He does think about his actions. He does know how bad it is what he?s doing. In other areas, not his weakness, he does keep to Hashem?s will. He is ???? ????? but he?s not ?????? ????? ??. Such a person, I think, is incredibly conflicted. He knows about Hashem and he?s rebelling against him on the one hand, while trying to obey him on the other. That person might be evil, might be scum of the earth, but he?s not Godless. On the contrary. And although we have to condemn such a person and his horrible actions, and we don?t envy his punishment in the World to Come, we might also be a little jealous of his relationship with Hashem. This may well be the reason the Gemara tells us that a person who says Lashon Hara about a talmid chacham falls in Gehennom, since the talmid chacham definitely did Teshuvah (Berachos 19a). How do we know he definitely did teshuvah? Because a talmid chacham, by definition, is a thinker. He didn?t indulge in non-thinking ? that?s not in his nature. And even if he had a moment of weakness and did something wrong, he certainly rebounded and regretted it the next day. (Contrast the talmid chacham with the non-thinker of before ? he just continues blissfully on with his life not realizing or caring that he sinned. That?s why we are not required to presume that he did Teshuvah.) A Godless person, properly defined, is one who denies Hashem?s existence completely. We have no basis, in this case or in many others, to assert that those are the circumstances we?re dealing with. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 23:43:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 06:43:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? On the topic Kvct Joel Rich Sent from my iPhone THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 21:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:06 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: It seems we agree that there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you are, eating what looks for all intents and purposes, to be Cheilev Yet Chazal were not Gozer to prohibit this due to Maris Ayin. Is the physical difference between Cheilev and Shuman more than the difference between fish blood and animal blood? Would there be no confusion between red coloured liquids, like wine and animal blood? There is no MA on Ben PeKuAh that is salvaged as a non-fully-gestated, no matter how long it lives and no matter how much it looks smells tastes and feels like an ordinary beast. Why is that so? Proposing that - IT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO CHEILEV SO THERE IS NO QUESTION - seems a little fantastic And indeed we should ask - why don't we worry that onlookers will think that beef Shuman is Cheilev? Is it OBVIOUS that there is no reason to suspect it is Cheilev, so why jump to that conclusion? I do not think so. I suspect that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies is as a product similar to the prohibited product. Perhaps like the position that Min BeMino is determined by name not by taste, Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 04:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Since when? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 07:09:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> References: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170823140919.GB32207@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:28AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: :> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat : Since when? Tangent: One of my pet peeves about Brisker derekh is how "chalos sheim" often is just begging the question. X needs a P, or else it doesn't really have the chalos sheim X. It's an empty statement, just saying that P is needed because the category needs P. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:13:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:13:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tax Evasion and Esrog purchasing In-Reply-To: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> References: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170825191326.GA15871@aishdas.org> Back in Sep 2014 Every year I mention the problem of buying an esrog from someone who > offers a better price if you pay in cash. Last year I was able to shift > from "li nir'eh it's a problem". RHSchachter reports that according to > RJBSoloveitchik, helping the seller evade taxes in this way is lifnei iver > (deOraisa, not "just" the derabbanan of mesayeia) and THE ESROG IS PASUL. They just put R' Asher Weiss's teshuvah on this subject up at : Tvunah in English Question: I recently went to a store and was told if a pay in cash then i would not need to pay taxes. If it is obvious that by me paying in taxes the store owner would not pay the proper tax on this sale to the government, am I allowed to do such a purchase or there is a problem of [lifnei iveir lo sisein mikhshol]. Answer: This would not seem to be the actual prohibition of Lifnei Iver as cash payment is inherently permissible and he can and may still pay taxes. There are a number of reasons a person would prefer cash payments, aside from tax evasion. At the same time, with regards to taxes we should generally assume Dina Demalchusa Dina and not encourage or promote tax evasion. It would seem RAW agrees on the halakhah, but disagrees that you should be chosheish that the preference for cash is due to tax evasion. Although in the first sentence the sho'el says the salesman told him so outright!? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:29:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:29:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Eilu va'Eilu Message-ID: <20170825192948.GA17720@aishdas.org> Because how can I /not/ share something on eilu va'eilu? -micha ----- Forwarded message from torahweb at torahweb.org ----- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:31:45 -0400 From: torahweb at torahweb.org Subject: updates to Rav Schachter's dvar Torah To: weeklydt at torahweb.org TorahWeb EILU V'EILU Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim -- both opinions are the words of the Living G-d." although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she'ha'Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She'b'al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah. The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether -- according to their perspective -- the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim." This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions imply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v'eilu. Even when we do apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" it does not mean that halacha l'ma'aseh one has the right to follow either opinion. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v'eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, "Beis Shamai b'makom Beis Hille eina Mishna", i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don't even consider the views of Beis Shamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d'hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b'chutz la'aretzm, even when dealing with a d'oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l'hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l'ma'aseh. (See my sefer, B'Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.) Likewise the poskim assume that when you have a shitah y'chida'ah, a lone opinion among poskim not shared by others, this view also does not constitute a slight safeik. The Beis Shmuel (Shulchan Aruch, Even HoEzer siman 90, s'if kattan 6) thinks that even if the Rambam agrees with the Ri Migash on an position not agreed upon by other poskim, this view should be totally ignored, since the Rambam was so taken by the genius of the Ri Migash (his father's rebbe), and would naturally be inclined to accept his opinion without even thinking twice (even though in several instances the Rambam does reject his opinion), this psak would be considered a shitah y'chida'ah and should be totally ignored. It was recently reported that a certain "beis din" permitted a married woman to remarry without a get, because it was ascertained that her husband was not Sabbath observant at the time he married her, and the halacha considers one who is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia to be like a non-Jew. And, they reasoned, we all know that if a non-Jew marries a Jewish woman the marriage does not take effect. This ruling is absolutely scandalous. First of all, the consensus of recent poskim has been that the concept of mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia doesn't apply today since so many Jews are not shomer Shabbos and the term "b'farhesia" has the connotation that this individual is breaking the discipline in the community (Chazon Ish and Binyan Tzion.) The members of this "beis din" would most certainly have been the first to say that such a Jew would not cause wine he touched to become prohibited because he is not considered to be like a non-Jew. More importantly, the view that a Jew who is treated as a non-Jew because he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia can't effectively marry a Jewish woman is totally ignored, because it is against an explicit gemara (Yevamos 47b) that states that even if a Jew converts to another religion and marries a Jewish woman the marriage does in fact take effect. We can't apply the concept of eilu v'eilu to this view; it is simply incorrect. Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v'eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v'eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does notmean that it has ramifications halacha l'ma'aseh. There are rules and regulations regarding psak halacha; this discipline is not hefker (is not a free for all.) The parsha tells us that the halachic positions of the Beis Din Hagadol are binding on all Jews. The Sanhedrin was a group of Torah scholars who were clearly head and shoulders above all of their contemporaries. They were the gedolei hador (the Torah giants of their generation), and the gedolei hador have the status of rabo muvhak for their entire generation, even for those who never even met them (see Tosafos on Berachos 31b and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 244:10.) The halachic positions of one's rebbe muvhak are binding on him, and the halachic views of the gedolei hador (who are clearly head and shoulders above the other Torah scholars of their generation) may not be ignored. None of the members of the aforementioned "beis din" are recognized by anyone as belonging to the category of gedolei hador, and even if it had been a case where we would apply eilu v'eilu, since the gedolei hador have unanimously rejected it for generations, no one today who is not in the category of gedolei hador has the right to go against this rejection! Rabbinic leaders throughout the generations are always concerned with the plight of agunos, but coming up with non-halachic solutions is not the Orthodox way. The Talmud Yerushalmi seems to hold that the concept of pikuach nefesh doesn't only apply when one's life is in danger, but also if one's life will be made extremely miserable this too falls under the category of pikuach nefesh, which allows one to violate Torah laws. The Yerushalmi (quoted by Rav Yosef Engle in Teshuvas Aguna) says that we would have allowed every agunah to violate the prohibition of adultery if not for the fact that we are dealing with gilui arayos (forbidden marriages) where the halacha does not permit one to violate the mitzvah even in a case of literal pikuach nefesh -- even to save one's life. The aforementioned "beis din" is doing a disservice to the Orthodox Jewish community at large, and specifically to these poor agunos, by misleading them with absolutely scandalously fallacious piskei halacha. Let the public beware! One must be of the caliber of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski in his generation or Rav Moshe Feinstein in the past generation in order to determine in a given case if the halacha permits a woman to get remarried without a get. POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the aforementioned "beis din", also see important letter from Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz regarding the "International Beit Din" . Copyright (c) 2017 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 09:42:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Poem For Elul Message-ID: <20170827164248.GA14698@aishdas.org> Saw on Facebook and wanted to share. I am not sure if R Bin Goldman intended the title to be "a poem for elul" (sic) and the first line read (in Hebrew, my transliteration) "Lekha Amar Libi" or if he wrote a poem titled "Lekha Amar Libi, which he introduced as a poem for Elul. I am presenting it as if the latter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Lekha Amar Libi [R'] Bin Goldman My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:18:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach Message-ID: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)? If not, where is its force grounded? Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own law as long as it doesn?t contradict the seven? Who would be eligible to be on a Bnai Noach court and how much interpretive independence would they have? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:19:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Moshe and aharon Message-ID: <846178C1-4E50-4DC0-9C2B-7D9B22F0E745@sibson.com> Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b ) two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to debate] Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse Kt Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 18:53:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:10 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... Message-ID: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin presented in an earlier message. The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product. Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting - please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when? Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera, see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its - Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues] R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. Would you please explain how and/or why? = = = = = = Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are 3 issues that require clarification: 1. Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protests? Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: 1. Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. 2. Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:34:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8326ab8f-6f6d-4868-0fd3-9a28f508abd0@sero.name> On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. > Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the important) distinction. I don't know how similar they look on the surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with different names even in English. > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Once again, I object. Who says so? > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be > performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to > the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 07:20:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828142031.GA10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin : presented in an earlier message. : The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis. As in: : R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the : application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. : Would you please explain how and/or why? This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an observer. See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur, not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half of the label on the "almond milk". But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat? Tangent: : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk... WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats and the milk were cooked together. As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar. After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to wait to eat. The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's. (My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?) Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs. But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked them together? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:06:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (MorrisIsaacson via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog Message-ID: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) Thank you, Moshe Isaacson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:20:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the : sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk : that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that : milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us : that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would : have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would : have been protected from those other ingredients... This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out something else... According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is that of kosher species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of the milking. Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched by a Yisrael. Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly, neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy more than chazal's taqanah. For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's ruling exempting powdered milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent > adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still > applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched > by a Yisrael. > > Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 10:52:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa : lechumra. Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines right above your comment. (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about without the gezeira. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:52:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828155218.GC10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote: : Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated : with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't resplond when you asked on another forum.) Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid. The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and Tzefaniah 2:14. But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol to it. The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll", because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French. Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would share that metaphor. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. > > : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash > : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa > : lechumra. > Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal > visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing > "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. > So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines > right above your comment. He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah. And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5fe6203e-5ca3-2df7-9dc4-ab23193ca9e8@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF > held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus > inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping kashrus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:18:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:18:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have : done. I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:50:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7a7271fd-d51c-6efc-2eb8-8d88dc02bf52@sero.name> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose > : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need > : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have > : done. > > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further supervision is needed. I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care about reshus. What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his employees or guests. The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours from the bottle into his cup. And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. So what makes it CY? This can be further split into two scenarios: (1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision. It was CY lim'hadrin from the moment of milking until this nochri bought it. But now it isn't. (2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at one point it was already in reshus yisroel. In other words, there was more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from the bottle. Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus nochri? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 15:07:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? In-Reply-To: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> References: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170828220709.GH31841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the : bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') : is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, : an eclipse is not included in this list... The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of an eclipse is for others, not Jews. BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah? Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said? I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im (mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see Creation in it but can't. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 13:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828202847.GG31841@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature : calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow : and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as : Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. ... : But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar : and non-Tzon, this non-animal? : Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence : my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You went over my head. I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73. So what are you asking? ... : Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, : the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even : if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur : will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and CAN be chal on it. As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type fatty deposits? Where this question is coming from: My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of a chayah is permissible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 17:25:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:25:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances Message-ID: Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis. He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined by the names we use to identify things. But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as far as I can tell, has not been addressed. Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the facts of the Halacha. I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by. We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino, is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste? Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop - stop trying to force the round peg. I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined. = = = = = Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked with milk from the Pesikta he quotes. Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, it must still be Halachically coherent. Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats. - - - - - Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained why there is no MA to cook these with dairy. He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different names even in English. Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are. Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi. Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim, take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is explaining. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:10:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:10:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? Message-ID: The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The answer is Yes and also No There is an Issur to eat Neveila but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat - RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2 Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah. Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by the Gemara, Chullin 58a. A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar, a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo. After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before being incubated] from unfertilised eggs. Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif]. Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it. What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision must be made, which is ZVZGo. BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa. Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher chickens when they hatch. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 16:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh Message-ID: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds." Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 19:54:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which conclusions may be drawn. > Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when > HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until > they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection > and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was permitted to them. But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 05:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it (and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead) However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers. They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish. Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container with CS. How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)? (they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 08:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ab46d6f-e25f-3389-5dea-28aabefa26c1@sero.name> On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they > are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were > growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the > eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] Then why not say the same of the hen's meat? It too was mostly grown before it became a tereifah! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 12:52:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh In-Reply-To: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> References: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170829195223.GA27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, : assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? : Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as : Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in : Hebrew. TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error tragic; I wonder if it's common. I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers: Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds... until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud. Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad. The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados". The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 13:32:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170829203231.GB27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold : that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the : status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan : according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their : keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the : absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all : kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his : descendants! Not to mention all benei Racheil. Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before we were true Benei Yisrael. Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a "nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah. Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other. Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as an issur chamur. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 30 12:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:48:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments Message-ID: A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933: As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . (Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues) We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address. It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure way of life that would bring us to God's light. The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps. Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split. A couple of notes: 1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause. 2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other personal sin), he had this in mind. 3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely within the Clal doing the sin. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 06:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 07:44:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it > sounds like "original sin." YL And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:35:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170831233516.GB22179@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me :> it sounds like "original sin." YL : : Did you think only Xians beleived : in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our : view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the : guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"... The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach. Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos, all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin. Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 12:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America Message-ID: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus see there for more background: On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land... On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein... REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US. Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6: Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them, they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness, not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished, as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia. Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain, without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with our very eyes ... This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel] was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150 years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather, that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times. (Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America being a "medinah shel chessed.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:43:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have several comments. The OU writes: > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > the home for Shabbos. Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs of the home." In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting the lights is part of that! The OU continues: > The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. > Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to > sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama), > women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to > me it sounds like "original sin." I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I think that's all the Tur is saying. It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive from the same event. Finally, the OU writes: > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > the wicks will easily catch fire. It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be *more* difficult to light later on. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 18:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:57:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh Message-ID: NEVEILAH Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the prohibition to eat Neveilah It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2 However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah. I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by Halacha so why is it Assur to eat it? MARIS AYIN The following are universally accepted 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha and even Minhag 2] AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta] 3] AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA? I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal. and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats, even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA. The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah - Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not. Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has no direct Halachic component to it Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a reflection of Halacha. Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden. Please provide some sources. As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is also predicated upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim. As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish? ISSUR BBCh I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor - only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook. The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out - the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:06:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:06:02 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a little bit will do] That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However, for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen. The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:00:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb'al peh Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression > that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may > disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no > one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within > the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from > Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions > made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that > seem problematic to our minds." > > Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, > assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not > so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies > as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent > in Hebrew. I could respond in any of several ways. Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial. I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash, until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that Nach is also included.) Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural sources, and with hardly any logical arguments. Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin: What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his stereotypes about mishnayos.) This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion, and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our practice is XYZ. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 22:23:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? Ben On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system > of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to > see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or > murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow > one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and > speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 06:49:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org>, <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. Kvct Joel rich > On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? > > Ben > >> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system >> of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to >> see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or >> murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow >> one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and >> speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkampgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:45:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based ideology. But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses. I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate, interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need. So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:58:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ > Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas > haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's > because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something. Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive, and they recognized this. The implications for today are self-evident. As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the Zionists actively fought against religious practice. -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:11:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote: : That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I : don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:19:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:19:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict so many murderers. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:27:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901152729.GI31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so : that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power : and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, : false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why : we continue to remember Amalek. R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8) RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can can pass as soon as we stop being a threat. Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as chinam. So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah. This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on what they did, and not let it Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't, why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred we feel once we realize they hate us back. The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how to address sin'as chinam. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:27:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only > superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any > other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't > mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it > became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly > damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:08:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:08:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias" and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell "Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote: : As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign : names? As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations. The use of : aleph and ayin always makes things interesting. The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE 126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them. It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.) My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud. There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef; patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud. On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued: :> The very point I was trying to make is that yes, : I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an : English word into Hebrew. : If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1 : spelling. Especially for more complicated names. As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)... There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others. I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself. The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide English sounds among the established transliterations. "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the "j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and an English "ch". The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or "Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's where I could see debate. Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only said by some who know her? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:59:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4318c19f-0790-10f1-6bab-106d72e8dd9b@sero.name> On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/ thing for the "j". The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi teshuvot discuss it. IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it was spelt gimel yud. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:34:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:34:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The role of gematria, and remez in general In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <488600f7-ef1c-3adb-b551-f3c00f739ff9@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170901163421.GC28962@aishdas.org> >From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria itself reached Avodah topicality. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim: > True. But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li > pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see > how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that. > R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other > opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not > one of them methods used to darshan Torah. And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:" : Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves : use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah... What is the role of Remez? We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh -- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.) Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat in the pasuq. And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod". But remez? What's it for? It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f004425-548e-142a-90de-48c5e91769b8@sero.name> On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. [Email #2] On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:24:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901172407.GB14196@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means : they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which would either mean: 1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency. Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't try to fix what you can? 2- They felt they were insufficient in skill. Or a third or fourth possibility. I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death. Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment. And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9, the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death. He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then. R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin" which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time getting permission to execute someone than they did. But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi wrong. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:52:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote: > > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > > the home for Shabbos. > >Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. >The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was >"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a >level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why >this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, >because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs >of the home." > >In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting >the lights is part of that! Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) >Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be >in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do >something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I >think that's all the Tur is saying. You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness, >Finally, the OU writes: > > > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > > the wicks will easily catch fire. > >It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully >understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain >piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and >difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a >charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. >In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be >counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be >*more* difficult to light later on. Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:32:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:32:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412cee4b-73a8-f3ae-bd8f-d8051cb68646@sero.name> On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually > oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:03:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, from Jewish breakaway groups). Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). Another (lesser known one): the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha. (IIRC, the S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.) My question is this: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and something comparable in secular life. Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from some other group/idealogy? (E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of it's Nazi association. But I'm looking for a better and more relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't a common design anyway)). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:07:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we : are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some : sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and : something comparable in secular life. Something so direct, it's not even an analogy. Jewish: Yichud. Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the opposite gender. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:17:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> >The following are universally accepted >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all >Halacha and even Minhag Is this the case? According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm , the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos). He also mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613. (As they each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) ) So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? (In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or so. So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did the general opinion change? Or did it?) -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 02:39:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:39:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath Message-ID: Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel during their Shabbath? Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, text (SMS) or WhatsApp? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 12:09:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality.? So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 03:38:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 06:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . I wrote: > In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then > lighting the lights is part of that! and R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of > homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? > ... > Given that roles today are much different than they were in > the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles > should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I > am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive. I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For example, if non-family are present, some might consider this non-tzniyus. But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other. > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which > are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights > with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is > no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem > with Shabbos neiros? As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that does not apply to Chanukah. My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 04:08:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: . R' Sholom Simon asked: > Can anybody think of a secular (ideally, American) law or > common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish > ourselves from some other group/idealogy? R' Micha Berger's response of yichud is a great example of where secular society has grasped the importance of gezeros which help protect us from ourselves. Similarly, secular society understands the concept of Mar'is Ayin and Chashad, and they express this in the term "Appearance of impropriety". (There's even a short Wikipedia page with that title.) But I don't think either of these is what RSS was asking for. He wants examples where the purpose is specifically: > in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, > from Jewish breakaway groups). > > Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos > (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). The answer that first came to my mind is that the original American colonists adopted various practices to distinguish themselves from their European origins. I'm sure there were others, but the main one that comes to my mind is the spelling differences between British and American English. For example, the Wikipedia article "Comparison of American and British English" says: "One particular contribution towards formalizing these differences came from Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionary (published 1828) with the intention of showing that people in the United States spoke a different dialect from Britain, much like a regional accent." Akiva Miller PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, where we are uneqivocally supposed to do it one way, but the other way is grudgingly acceptable after the fact. (Speeding limits are *not* a good example of this. The policeman will probably not stop you for going slightly over the limit, but he certainly could. That would be a Chetzi Shiur at most - a clear violation, even if not a punishable one.) If anyone has good examples, please start a new thread. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 06:07 PM 9/1/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >Jewish: Yichud. >Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy >about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the >opposite gender. Thanks -- but I'm looking more for something that is intended to separate us (us "regular Americans" -- whatever that is) from a people or nation or ideology that we find distasteful. An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). I'm looking for a law or practice that *separates/distinguishes" (havdil) - your example is more like a "fence." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest example I can think of is not secular. Mennonite (including Amish) men shave their moustaches to express their rejection of all things military, because when their customs were formed soldiers wore moustaches. > PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that > is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, There's the principle "de mimimis non curat lex", but that's more like chatzi shiur, which civil law considers mutar lechatchila. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:15:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <657b8edc-97f8-5fa2-45c9-7efe94200b60@sero.name> On 02/09/17 05:39, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel > during their Shabbath? > > Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, > text (SMS) or WhatsApp? If you know they won't break shabbos to read it, or at least you don't know they will break shabbos to read it, then I don't see a problem. "Ee ata metzuveh al shevisas keilim". It's not shabbos for you; it is shabbos for the remote instrument that you are manipulating, but that is not a problem. The same would apply to operating a waldo that's in a place where it's shabbos; it's shevisas keilim, which BH says is not a thing. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:28:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: <12a7adb9-e48c-7af7-3fb2-7ee96c2a3799@sero.name> On 02/09/17 15:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue > here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a > reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and > Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but > it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand > that we live in this reality. But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:51:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:51:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (1:4) writes: "When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel ... They would come to the Beis Din at the entrance to the Azara. If they knew [the din] they would tell them, if not everyone went into the Beis Din and asked. ... If the matter was not clear to the Beis Din they would discuss the issue until all agreed or they they would take a vote and follow the majority and tell the petitioners this is the halacha" The Rambam is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 88 which states the following: "At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Beis Din Hagadol. The Beis Din Hagadol was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah). If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide. After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai)." There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the Tannaim, the Gemara in fact related that they left their place in the Lishkas ha'Gazis 40 years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. If so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol in existence? 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:23:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: , <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: From: Sholom Simon Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:17 PM > The following are universally accepted > 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha > and even Minhag > Is this the case? ... > So... what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone > accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? As in many things, the Rambam seems not to have been noticed. This is distressing, because the Rambam tries to present things according to halokho, not according to medrash. As he says in his introduction to the Tenth Pereq of Sanhedrin in Perush haMishnayot, medrash is almost never to be taken literally, but rather comes to teach us things (but says that most Jews don't understand that). For halakhic purposes, the Rambam explains in Hil. M'lakhim 9:1, that Adam haRishon observed 6 things that he was commanded. One was added after the Mabbul, so yielding 7 mitzvos that Noah and his descendents were commanded to observe. Avraham Avinu was also commanded concerning Milah, and he took upon himself the obligation to daven Shacharit. Yitzchak added another two, and Ya'aqov another two. When rabbis say that Avraham observed all 613 Mitvot, it is obviously not meant literally: many, many of the 613 only came into force after King Shlomo built the BhM. Before that, there were a whole set of other mitzvot (such as that the Kohanim and only the Kohanim wereto take apart and assemble the Mishkan, and that the L'viyim and only the L'viyim were to carry the parts of the Mishkan). These were commandments from HQBH, but not part of the set of 613. When the BhM was built, those mitzvot disappeared and new mitzvot, which are part of the 613 count, came into effect. So before that no one "observed" the 613. And some of the 613 are only applicable to Kohanim, and some only to L'viyim, and some only to Yisra'elim, so there was no person ever who observed or could observe all 613 mitzvot. So when we say nowadays that Jews are commanded to observe 613 mitzvot it does not mean that any person is commanded to observe all 613; it means that there exist 613 mitzvot. Every Jew is commanded to learn all 613, however. So it is possible that the Avot learned all 613. But most of them were not technically mitzvot then, because they were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and before that no one was commanded to do them. So what does the Torah mean when it says that Avraham observed "mishmarti, mitzvotai,chuqqotai v'torotai" (sic, not "toratei) in Chapter 26? The same thing that it means in 18:19 "for I know him, that he will command his children and his house after him to obeserve the way of the Lord." There is no question that Avraham Avinu was ALSO commanded to observe what Chazal include in the term "Derekh Eretz" and the Rambam explicates in Hil. De'ot Pereq 6, which included such basic things as proper behavior and middot (and one of the main goals of the Aishdas organization, and nowadays is called "mussar"). Chazal say that all of those things have to come before Torah, i.e. before learning rest of the Torah. And, as Micha the founder of Aishdas can tell you better than anyone, there are so many, many things that one has to learn and focus on to observe these most basic of the commandments. So Avraham would have had his hands full teaching people those. Did he also learn all the mitzvot that would be given later? He was a novi, and so perhaps could, but one cannot say that he "observed" them in the literal sense, because how could one "observe" a law that had not yet been instituted and was not even applicable? Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 17:39:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when : American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. : (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their national ethnicity. I think this topic has become non-PC. Nationalism is even a dirty word in some circles; viewed as faschism, or fascism-lite. You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without running afoul of rules about discussing politics? But I hope that at least relating the two topics will provide something to think about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 10:58:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel > and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the > Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din > Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority and passed their 18 gezeros. The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the period of the zugos. Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 12:44:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:44:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > >> 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel >> and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the >> Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din >> Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. >> > > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority > and passed their 18 gezeros. That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. > The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. > Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the > period of the zugos. Yes that is exactly the question. Why didn't they resolve all of the Machlokes in the Mishnayos. > Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the > other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. Wouldn't that violate the issur of lo tasuguru mipnei ish? > > > -- > Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, > zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 18:14:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7333f45e-37cb-8ad0-ca8f-bffbb68048f8@gmail.com> Sun, 3 Sep 2017 Marty Bluke asked: > ...The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the > Tannaim... > so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence > there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students > had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol > in existence? > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and > Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? > Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for > most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. By '''in existence,'' the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The English-language Jewish history books that have been published over the past few decades follow this model. I have also done so in ''The Dynamics of Dispute,'' (Judaica Press) Chapter 10, ''The Control and Proliferation of Machlokess, Keeping the Torah One.'' Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 01:59:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:59:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:01:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> On 05/09/17 04:59, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both > David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never > attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females must be killed as well. Your question of how Agag's descendants, conceived the night before he was killed, managed to become so numerous so quickly applies here too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:17:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? Message-ID: According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. However, others disagree. Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/yblaj8cu If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:49:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:49:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it > into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? > Greek changed a lot over the centuries. I'm not sure if it even existed as a language at the time of Joshua, and the Greek alphabet was certainly much later. If Greek was the one of the languages the Torah was translated into then it would probably have been unrecognizable in the Hellenistic period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 09:17:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> On 05/09/17 11:17, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate > it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? 1. Ptolemy, not Alexander. 2. 72 sages, not 70. 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) exist today? 4. Even if the writing did still exist, would whatever passed for Greek in 1271 BCE have been intelligible in 271 BCE? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:36:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:36:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/5/2017 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. > However, others disagree. ... > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 > languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages > to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek > translation? Well, for one thing, it was Ptolemy, rather than Alexander. But for another, maybe it wasn't necessary. Perhaps if they'd simply asked for the authoritative Greek translation, they'd have gotten it, and any number of distortions of the Torah caused by the Septuagint wouldn't have happened. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:20:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> References: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170905182040.GB2253@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:17:10PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the : writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure : to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) : exist today? Rishonim on Yehoshua also argue how many such monuments there were. For example Rashi (at least as explained in Gur Aryeih) has three copies: one in the Yaedrin, one on the mizbeiach on Har Eivel (which is named in Devarim) and one at Gilgal. AND there is a machloqes tanna'im (Sotah 35b) about how they were written. But I think both shitos hold they were engraced. R' Shimon says that the stones were plastered, and then the words were engraved into the plaster. R' Yehudah held the stones were engraved, and then plastered on top of them. R' Yehudah's position sounds like it's describing more permanent writing, but how would you get to see it? You would not only need to peel off the plaster, the plaster could well get into the engraved letters. To address the original question: Ezra haSofer used majority to produce the mesoretic text, leaving us with a sefer that didn't match any of the copies found. Why didn't he check the Hebrew copy/ies from the monunemnt(s)? Wouldn't a text engraved by people who met MRAH be more authoritative than any of them? (All this assuming, as is the post I'm replying to, that they contained the whole Torah. That is the shitah we're trying to understand, no?) So it would seem to me that just as we have no idea how to find this monument / these monuments, even if the writing is still legible, they were already unavailable in Ezra's day. Unsurprising, given how much more pragmatic and used knowledge was lost. And even if they did know where to find it, either the writing wore off the plaster, or perhaps the plaster was too embedded after all those centuries to be picked off to read the stone. Regardless of the shift in Greek, the stones weren't even usable when the target was the original Hebrew. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170905184626.GC2253@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:17:58PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >The following are universally accepted : >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all : >Halacha and even Minhag : : Is this the case? In a footnote to one of his father-in-law's maamarim, RMMS (the LR), writes that this is meant that they did so "beruchnius, velo begashmius": Some mitzvos they "only" fulfilled the point of the mitzvah without physically doing the mitzvah. E.g. tefillin, with its mention of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. Others, they did perform the mitzvah physically, but still they only did so to accomplish the ruchnius -- it was only incidentally physical, and only sometimes in the same form. See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31608&st=&pgnum=137 For example (not given there), the Zohar links Yaaqov's spotted sticks and changing the coats of sheep to the mitzvah of tefillin. But the sticks didn't become qadosh, because uplifting and redeeming the gashmi wasn't part of the plan. There is more in Liqutei Sichos on Lekh Lekha www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/68627/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Lech-Lecha.htm Given RMMS's relationship to shitas Rashi, and our stereotype that chassidus tends to take maximalist positions, I thought this position would be somewhat interesting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 13:30:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:30:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> Message-ID: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females > must be killed as well. How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what the mitzvah and the dinim were? Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently no one informed him. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 20:43:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 05/09/17 16:30, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females >> must be killed as well. > > How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what > the mitzvah and the dinim were? They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 07:45:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:43:20PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe : taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of : "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in : front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never : knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so : angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. BB 21b. I think he concluded said rebbe (Yoav) did it as intentional ziyuf, not an error. R Mordechai Breuer concludes that the semichut (i.e. the "X of Y" form of the word for X) for "zakhar" could follow a variant conjugation and come out "zekher". And while it's hard to picture confusing "z'khar" and "zeikher", "zekher" and "zeikher" is much easier. The "zekher" vs "zeikher" debate over what the Gra had for Parashas Zakhor was over which means the Gra's intent was to tell us the word means "reminder / memorial" rather than "memory". The mesorah is "zeikher". But if zekher could mean both "males of" and "memory of", the mistake is VERY easy. (Not that RMB would worry about the possibility of the Gra disagreeing with the mesoretic niqud.) But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? It's strange. In our culture, it would be the "hot topic" of study for the weeks leading into the war... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 11:48:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > error. No. Why would he do that? The Rishonim discuss whether the rebbe himself didn't know the correct pronunciation, or whether he knew it and therefore taught it corrrectly, but didn't pay enough attention to how each boy was pronouncing it, so never noticed that young Yoav had misheard him and was reading "z'char". > But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 15:51:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an : >error. : No. Why would he do that? A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't get clarification /before/ the war? And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most of the animals? Actually, if you figure the remaining animals were for qorbanos, he was planning on all them being killed. A random reenactment of Yericho? Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 19:12:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> On 06/09/17 18:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > : >error. > > : No. Why would he do that? > > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. I don't understand why you keep bringing David up. What does he have to do with this story? The story is about Yoav, not David. And I repeat my question, why would Yoav's rebbe intentionally corrupt the pasuk? Why would Yoav even suspect him of it? > :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? > > : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. So how does that make Yoav a gadol? > And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? Why would it even occur to him that Yoav had such a misunderstanding? > And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most > of the animals? Do you mean Shaul? Perhaps Yoav didn't know the details of what had happened all those years ago. In fact how many people ever knew about Shmuel's rebuke of Shaul? It may have been secret by the king's order, and not spoken about, so Yoav may never even have heard of it. > Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when > it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Again, Yoav thought he had it right. He didn't even know that there was anything he needed to ask. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 00:02:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi@opengemara.org via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3FF2B345-8199-48FC-A3BD-6A89FC2540F9@opengemara.org> On September 6, 2017 3:51pm PDT, Micha Berger wrote: ... > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. .. >: Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? The Gemara (Bava Basra 21b) says that the issue was "???? ???? ????? ?' ???? [arur oseh melekhes H' remiyah -mb]" -- that the teacher should be more attentive (also, it fits into the Sugya there -- that a teacher who is medayek is better than one who's fast). Also, there's a machlokes in Sanhedrin if Yoav was a good person who made mistakes or if he was evil but found Dovid Hamelech to strong. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 09:45:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:45:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: R' Martin Bluke asked: > 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says > hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash > states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night > and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. > > However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought > Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if > Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David > and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to > wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out Amalek. First the data: * The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters. * The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh * As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's Pelishti stronghold. * Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a problem. So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul. Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans, but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert. So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them, because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites, Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself. Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command. Ad kaan. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 11:15:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Practices of the Tochacha" Message-ID: Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well written and very interesting. http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 12:54:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170907195348.KNNX30763.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: >: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when >: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. >: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). > >Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have >recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken >to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their >national ethnicity. . . . > >You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without >running afoul of rules about discussing politics? Perhaps. Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable with respect to Americans and the American Revolution! Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 14:24:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170907212448.GC15354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? : http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation: All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 15:38:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170907223856.GD15354@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" : d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its : mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? : : Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, : but we don't hold like him. Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4. It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20. ... : We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from : Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus : seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's : significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, : suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later (you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted the gezeira. Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely. : So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev, not so much. I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo" was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo" rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get that conclusion from "sevasheil". And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim lemiqra. But it crashed down. Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 23:55:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> Message-ID: Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks with him the rest of life. Ben On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there > was anything he needed to ask. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 11:55:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 13:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:06:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote: : I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw : it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather : than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," : just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. R Mordechai Breuer On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote: : How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him : what the mitzvah and the dinim were? : Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous : mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know : that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently : no one informed him. And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav was strongly deferential to David. Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the questions as to why. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 14:02:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything > about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a > unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav > was strongly deferential to David. I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. Suppose you're a caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which includes liver. You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, and I agree. You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 9 19:13:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur Message-ID: RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh [but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein Issur Chal Al Issur. So how is it that RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 03:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: > By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' > Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources > that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol > could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and > Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam says? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:18:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to function normally. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:43:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:43:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the > time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to > function normally. And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way. The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin was not functioning normally. [Email #2. -micha] One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 07:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91da4a07-6dcd-bc04-b9e0-38326532931d@sero.name> On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod to both sides. (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 10:02:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : While there may have : been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, : why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam : says? Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin, when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin. (Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.) So, what happened? My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed resolution by higher courts. IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 15:32:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45eac523-5fc8-1a2c-0c9a-256d54c2e054@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700), when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704, while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate, and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards. There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows Beis Hillel. Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become the standard one. All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 20:42:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> Message-ID: <6c5042b2-7703-92b5-e001-b2e5bc111010@zahav.net.il> In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these issues when instructing the soldiers? Ben On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 01:20:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the > one on smicha What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. [Email #2] On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different > conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed > resolution by higher courts. > > IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. > > To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of > valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 06:23:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha" > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. No, they weren't. BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they started in the very last years before it, when things were far from normal functioning. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170911151131.GF24527@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? : Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis : Sheini. But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis. I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a "veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule. The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer. Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq, for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al devarav, for even these greats weren't. So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the best answer to your question. And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to the late amoraim? Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why (leshitas haRambam) the question was still around? : On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. :> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of :> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? : The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white : approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim : "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything : in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying : that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini. (Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's just projecting.) There is a difference between 1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah saying it means the last two are in reversed order; and 2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this idea would be kosher. The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin. And yet, multiple norms would co-exist. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the destruction of Bayit Sheni. Lisa On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis > Sheini. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 07:13:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories Message-ID: <20170911141302.GB24527@aishdas.org> Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav in a different direction. I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the "q" in "Amaleiq".) : I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported : wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher : Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where : we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history. : Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint : in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious : revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of : anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where : the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in : order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal : add a story that isn't needed. : Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or : pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some : of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising, : but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read : historically, I wonder. I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.) Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened" the criteria for such categorization? If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories that defy how the world works. (And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who accept miracles.) In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures. Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid. IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh and av deis din derelict in his duty? The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because they're only ahistoric. I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from within the midrashic-story system. So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..." While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise" far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:54:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty. Rabbi Akiva lived at the > time of the Bar Kochva revolt. R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later. The > vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the > destruction of Bayit Sheni. While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 17:20:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, > Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was > Nasi in Yavneh)" And how many of those feature in any machlokos? Hillel & Shammai had only three, beside the long-running one on smicha. > These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel & Shammai do. Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to dispute? > Hillel and Shammai were certainly > well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their > students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo ra'u". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 18:19:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:19:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 07:02:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? Message-ID: <1505224922640.65779@stevens.edu> Please see the video at http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb produced by the Harabonim of Queens YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 20:16:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:16:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? In-Reply-To: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe > the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were > gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". > Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of > machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the > teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the > lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on! As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one). Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF. * HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim, 1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130 concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora. (All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 08:49:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? Message-ID: <1505317742192.42683@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40) writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until thirteen and a half minutes after sunset. The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 11:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (hankman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:11:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Message-ID: R. Zvi Lampel wrote: ?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help?? CM responds: Yup, I imagine that would be the concordance in his head! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 06:28:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= Message-ID: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 08:54:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:54:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170914155423.GD26813@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av : even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but... Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 09:44:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach In-Reply-To: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> References: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170914164428.GA4289@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is : applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, : might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?.. I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981) count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei. So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod. While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such "tolados". : Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own : law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven? I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of authority is granted. There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of a Noachide court under dinim: The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society. This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10) and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid (Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim 10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim" includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law needs to look like. But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the other 6. This is shitas haRambam (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land. See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 11:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> Message-ID: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min : ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger : (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin was a meat thing in particular. But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the brain. (* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're the consensus, by sheer number.) If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration. It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort to obtain the treif milk. R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:00:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> References: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4636649d-ed8e-bc04-6e80-c299a962507c@sero.name> On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash > et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case > to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. > Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held > like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" > understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, > not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the > brain. You have the PC and CS reversed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1505420943267.43919@stevens.edu> Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170914201537.GB11862@aishdas.org> First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to R Akiva Miller's second post first. On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote: : As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that : takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real : halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the : lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, : but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that : does not apply to Chanukah. I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT) is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function of neis Shabbos. IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation" as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her feel less that she is shouldering the list alone. Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote: : Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. : The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was : "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a : level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why : this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, : because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs : of the home." Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..." But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah kavsah neiro shel olam connection.) The MB too... So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU cites, "only" the nesei keilim. : In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting : the lights is part of that! Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where women can consistently be homemakers..." The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way. BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't know what to make of that. Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular social state? This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book "Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law" https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing, and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes. One paragraph: Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways. The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point: according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations in a range of mitzvot! Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't know): Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal family unit. RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the thesis: Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical, and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single sex. He did not do so. ... Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family, we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids. So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed social structure. RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers, among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular kinds of social structure over others. ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with a husband and wife at the core. ... Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for, community units that comprise family units which comprise individual units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis. A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is so much to say about it. Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield: Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are -- and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 14:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170914210406.GB10180@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote: : There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): : 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the : Tannaim... According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im. According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion) it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over a dechuyah rule). So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and both talmuds. : 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and : Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? To sum up: 1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah. : Why did they let Machlokes fester? ... 2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted, or cannot be taken at face value. a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from the lishkas hagazis. Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post: b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should. And I suggested: c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that distinguishes between them. And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote: : > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won : > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority : > and passed their 18 gezeros. : That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed : group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It : sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either mean - number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5) - number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT sham) So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that would explain why they too got counted. But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 09:28:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:28:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> >From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss : Question: If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition. Answer: He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like an average person, and certainly not Maaser. If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur cholim, miqvah, shuls... I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of the rest of the community. Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. (I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to help, I would appreciate it.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 11:15:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? --------------------- From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 12:22:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170915192219.GD11421@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - : cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools (and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave them some guidelines for defining what that is. But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the complexity of their definition. And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/ poseiq would tell you to compute your share? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 17 07:08:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is the Customer Always Right? Message-ID: <95.E3.03036.1028EB95@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 15:19:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:19:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha > B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to > have a minyan? I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, as compared to wwithout a minyan. I thought that we say it Motzaei Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few days are left and we fear running out of time. Both reasons are even more relevant on Motzaei Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 21:39:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a25b83f-173e-6448-5511-011515a4e304@sero.name> On 18/09/17 18:19, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, > as compared to wwithout a minyan. Without a minyan one can't say the kaddish. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 01:56:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tuitiion Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: RMB wrote: > Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: > Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, > is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW > described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the > differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other > urgent causes? > I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one > may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if > promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are > currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: It is meritorious to support Torah scholars, and you may dedicate a portion of your [maaser kesafim] funds even to support one's own son studying Torah. You may likewise use a portion of these funds to pay for the your adult children's yeshiva gedola, midrasha and college tuition, but you should not draw on these funds for paying tuition while in elementary or high school. [1] However, someone lives a modest lifestyle and still cannot otherwise make ends meet, may draw on these funds even to pay for a portion of his minor children's Jewish day school tuition. [2] Someone who benefits from a scholarship at an institution of Jewish education should prioritize that institution when giving charity, over other institutions. [3] 1: Chatam Sofer YD 249 2: Igrot Moshe YD2 ?113, but Aruch haShulchan YD 249:7 disagrees 3: Oral ruling by Rav Hershel Schachter It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka. I once sent my kids to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we are discussing, since it is a poor community). -- Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 11:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral Message-ID: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> An Aish article notes: >The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >within them. There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first appear in Jewish thought?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 13:33:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom Message-ID: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> The most commonly cited reason that we say "oseh hashalom" rather than "oseh shalom" in kaddish during the 10 days, is that the gematria of hashalom is equivalent to the gematria of Safriel, the malach that "writes" us into the Book. (I just recently read somewhere else: "Hagahos Mordechai [Miseches Rosh Hashanah 720 he states as follows: Safiriel is the Gematria of Oseh and Oseh is the Gematria of Hashalom. Alternatively this hints to the kindness of Hashem that swerves the judgment to merit in a case that the sins and merits are equal, and the verse states "Maaseh Hatzedaka Shalom"." (I don't understand this second reason: the "sholom" in that last phrase doesn't have a "hey") I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their other reasons I am missing?) KvCT! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their > other reasons I am missing?) Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter counts. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:40:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <6d0c6039-0428-0174-88ec-0724ad47e1a5@sero.name> On 19/09/17 14:48, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >> forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >> Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >> imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >> within them. I assume this is in the context of a discussion of the way people in ancient times used to see time as cyclical rather than as progressing, as we moderns see it. > I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. > > Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first > appear in Jewish thought?) The idea that specific days have fixed properties that repeat every time they come around is found everywhere in Chazal. They took it completely for granted, and of course it fits into the cyclical way the ancients saw all of time. But it's clear from the Torah that they *didn't* see time as cyclical. So the author of this article uses the spiral to explain how they did see it. But it's impossible to discuss this entire subject without the insight that there are different ways to see time, and without the two models -- cyclical and progressive -- to contrast, and to propose syntheses as this author does. Chazal did not have the historical perspective to be aware of this whole dichotomy. I suspect they were unaware that the nochrim of their era didn't see time as they did, and that the nochrim were just as unaware that Jews didn't see time as *they* did. Only looking back from 2000 years later is this difference apparent, and we can discuss how the Torah's progressive view of history can be reconciled with dates repeating themselves, by using the spiral analogy. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 08:45:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170925154550.GC23052@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important : >as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, : >are their other reasons I am missing?) : Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the : first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter : counts. At least both the Chassidei Ashkenaz and the Tur held it was. There is no evidence of this line of thought any closer to the actual start of Nusach Ashkenaz. And a number of the Tur's word counts are dependent on flavor of Nusach Ashkenaz. Could well be that the significance is itself part of a bigger machloqes. They could also be taken as post-facto kavvanos, a way keep in mind a pasuq that colors what we mean by the baqashah, rather than causitive. It is interesting to me that the violation of word count gematrios in Nusach Ashkenaz is largely among Chassidim, who we culturally associate as the community most likely to deal in such remez. Except perhaps for Chida and Ben Ish Hai influenced Sepharadim, but they didn't have a nusach that made such claims to ask why they would choose to leave it. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 05:38:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:38:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? Message-ID: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, and what HKB"H wants from us: Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot switch its use). GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 09:30:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 25/09/17 08:38, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, > and what HKB?H wants from us: > Rama Y?D 249:13 (my free translation) ? In any event one shouldn?t > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won?t he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz ? so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 10:19:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:19:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: We change "min kol" to "mikol" to make up for the addition of the extra "l'eila".? So that the word count stays the same.? So yes, we see this kind of thing everywhere, including kaddish. Lisa On 9/19/2017 11:33 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria.? Do we see that elsewhere?? (Or, are > their other reasons I am missing?) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- I leave it to the readers to project if people put a name on as a form of bragging (separate question - is it intent or what observer's perceive that counts?) It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the item is not in danger of being switched in use? GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:29:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170925182902.GA16613@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:37PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An Aish article notes: :> The Jewish model of time is a spiral... : There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it : was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. : The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time : (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. : I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. There is no source, but it's a pretty compelling conclusion given Chazal's description of mo'eid, or chayav kol adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo repeating yetzi'as Mitzrayim annually OT1H, and yet OTOH speaking of history as inexorably running from Adam to the messianic era (and beyond). We might be the first generation consciously aware enough of the issue to think about our use of both language that implies circular time and that of linear time to want to make a synthesis "helical time". (True YU alumni would insist there is no helical time. Meaning comes from the tension of the dialectic; there is no syntheis. ) I don't question the value of lomdus, even though it is utilizing patterns in halakhah or halachic dialectic that weren't made explicit. Yes, that creates a change of error, but when the explanation is strong enough, do we reject the whole concept because the Rambam never spoke about gavra vs cheftza on topics other than oaths? Think how much hashkafah, or specifically Qabbalah, is drawn from just this kind of finding a theory to explain existing statements. This helical time is typical. So, is it a modern chiddush? That isn't a boolean question... to the extent you find this intepretation muchrach, it's inherent in what came bafore. And the the extent you don't, v.v. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:58:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>> Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't :>> glorify oneself with the charity he gives... :> Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their :> donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item :> donated... ... : It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the : item is not in danger of being switched in use? I am personally bothered when there is so much text on the paroches or cloth on the bimah (term?) that it detracts from the aesthetics. I am also bothered when more space is spent naming the donors than naming and perhaps lauding the person in whose memory the donation was given. That said... I think the consensus is that things have fallen to the point that we have two offsetting values that outweigh this ill: 1- When the choice is between collecting multiples more money with giving out honors vs operating on a shoestring and having to cut corners by only taking more purely motivated donations, the extra tzedaqah given is a mitzvah that outweights the alternative. 2- Even someone who has pure motives and wants to give quietly is living in a society that will respond positively if his donation is made public and influences the community. Peer pressure isn't just for teenagers. I think it's parallel to choosing chalitzah as a first choice. It's clear from the pasuq and the content of the ritual that chalitzah is something that in the ideal no one should be encouraged to choose. But as Abba Shaul noted, we don't live in that ideal world, and what was second-rate has become (centuries later) mandatory practice. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 12:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170925190253.GE16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, : as compared to without a minyan... We make a point of demonstrating communal unity in the middle. "Shalom Aleikhem!" Not speaking halachically, as you aren't obligated to greet 9 men, or even really greet anyone. But still... Aside from Zev's example of getting one more qaddish, which is a nice but incidental advantage, it seems to me that QL itself leans toward being a tzibur thing. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:34:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Ben On 9/19/2017 12:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I thought that we say it Motzaei > Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few > days are left and we fear running out of time. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:09:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:09:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <761520c3-faea-cd38-8ba8-ee24f675b3b7@sero.name> On 25/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > cloth on the bimah (term?) mappah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 03:39:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <046338f8-991f-2216-c55d-6002821d57a1@sero.name> On 26/09/17 01:34, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of > Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a > shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Not everyone does that, in fact some don't even say it on Shabbat, and wait until Shavuot. So zrizin doesn't necessarily override avelut. Also many don't do kidush levana until after 7 days from the molad, by which time we're into the deeper avelut. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 06:45:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170926134541.GB23180@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:34:30AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the : 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? ... I am confused. Isn't the implication simply that all else being equal, do it earlier because zerizin, but aveilus is sufficient for not considering all else equal? Why does zerizus being applicable mean that it is necessarily the most urgent halachic principle coming into play? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 11:54:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Over on Areivim, we were yet again discussing the cRc's position that one should not buy coffee from a full Starbucks store that sells food. Here's my take, cut-n-pasted from what I posted there. ... There is a lot of ham and bacon at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=hot-breakfast and poultry at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=sandwiches-panini-and-wraps The cRc's statement refers to these in particular . It also questions your assumption of the ubiquitous use of soap: Chicago Rabbinical Council Guide to Starbucks Beverages May 2013 / June 2015 ... As said, Starbucks shops serve many kosher and non-kosher items, with the most serious non-kosher item being hot meat sandwiches. The standard daily clean-up at Starbucks includes a hot wash of all utensils and some parts of that washing are done without soap. This clean up process significantly challenges the kosher status of the otherwise kosher products and each product must be judged by a competent halachic authority. The cRc has made available their detailed review and analysis of this topic in the spring 2011 edition of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and that article can be found below. Click here to read this article. The good news is that there are many Starbucks locations that do not serve hot meat sandwiches. These are generally the Starbucks kiosks which can be defined as a Starbucks location, usually found in a mall, retail store, a bus or train station or airport, that does not sell hot sandwiches. The cRc is comfortable recommending any drink made from kosher ingredients (even though some others use ingredients that may not be kosher). This list is accurate at this time for stores in the United States based on two and a half years of extensive research and consultation with the cRc's Av Beth Din, Rav Schwartz, shlit"a.... Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. And that is consistent with the lenient majority. We're trying to understand the cRc's ruling. There is no derabbanan here[, to justify another poster's invocation of safeiq derabbanan]. They're saying that the odds of your cup being washed without soap with a plate that held hot bacon or tereifah chicken is high enough that one needs to avoid taking that risk. But that's real nosein ta'am of an issur de'oraisa. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:56pm +0300 someone wrote to Areivim, on a discussion of the cRc's ruling against : I don't drink coffee at all, so I'm not a frequent Starbucks customer, but : I suspect that a sandwich like : https://www.starbucks.com/menu/food/sandwiches-panini-and-wraps/chicken-blt-salad-sandwich?foodZone=9999 : is probably at least 1/60th chicken or bacon. The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 13:17:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women Message-ID: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the topic of leadership/ordination for women. (I am indebted to some of those here who helped sharpen arguments :-) ). I think I have adequately illustrated that their position is based on wrong/unproven facts, poor logic, fuzzy definitions, strained arguments, and inconsistent application of the rules. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need to have a comprehensive and systematic approach to gender and public/leadership. I am happy to respond to questions, critiques and criticisms. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/sneak-peek-an-analysis-of-the-ban-on-women-rabbis/ Noam Stadlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 12:38:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926193827.GA27624@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:56:59AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: :> I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one :> may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if :> promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are :> currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. : From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: ... : It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as : tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his : minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But : what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka.... Agreed, but I don't see how it's obvious. Say your handyman is a pious guy, and rather than not doing business with people who can't afford his full rate, he charges them less for labor. Also, Rn Handyman isn't so willing to take the full hit on total income. Since this is a nice guy, we can assume that if more of the town were wealthier, his usual rate for someone who can beqoshi stretch the budget would be lower. Is the difference in salary tzedaqah? Does it make a difference if Reb Handyman actuall did this accounting and maybe even announced the resulting differential? Or is a baal melakhah's pay rate money owed, and such cheshbonos should be irrelevent. This imaginary scenario was designed to be both parallel and to my mind a somewhat wild line of reasoning. 1- Once you say that any tuition paid beyond the cost for your child is indeed tzedaqah, one needs a pesaq about how to apportion group costs to each individual student. The cost of the class divided by students, then the cost of school administation divided by the student body? Or maybe if a teacher is hired as soon as a class would otherwise grow beyond 25 students, I should be looking at the incremental cost of my child after the need to start the additional class was caused by someone else? And then -- could it depend on if I registered late, or before the number of classes was determined? And don't get me started on who is paying for resource room staff, where there are parallels to the above AND the reality that different kids would be using different amount of the service. So that my kid's 1 hour per week may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to get a math specialist, whereas another student's 5 hours of readin help is with a teacher they needed otherwise. Who pays what? 2- Once you make it tzedaqah, rather than considering tuition as debt, all could be fine-and-well halachically. And so it can come out of maaser kesafim. (All the more so because we aren't even sure maaser kesafim is a din.) And the schools like this, because it frees up maaser money for people who would otherwise need scholarship. But the line you're replying to was arguing that there is a downside for the school as well. As the teshuvah we started from notes -- debt is a higher priority than tzedaqah. You don't pay maaser out of money owed. And so, the school is marketing a din that may mean /less/ money for them than if the halakhah were that the full tuition should be treated as a debt. position for a sch chakhamim don't have to pay city defenses; maybe a good kid who doesn't see the principal should be considered : to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition : may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we : are discussing, since it is a poor community). GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 21:47:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> References: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4d52778a-5fe9-0dae-592c-ff6316a77877@sero.name> On 26/09/17 14:54, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health > department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough > regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. They wash in soapy water first, and then in clear water. The cRc's position is that soapy water, which is hotter than yad soledes bo but cooler than kashering temp, prevents the transmission of treife taam from one keli to another when they are washed together, but it does *not* render the treife keli permanently pagum. The treife keli comes out just as treif as it was, so when it's then put into *clean* hot water together with the kosher keli the treife taam transfers. > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical substance at all, so it's not surprising that even if it permeates the keli's entire structure, which we assume it does, it doesn't add to its mass. This is also why the bracha on coffee is shehakol, not ha'etz, because there is no substance of the coffee bean in the final product; only taam, smell, and colour are transferred in the brewing, all of which are assumed to have zero mass. Which makes the existence of instant coffee a conundrum, and casts doubt on the practise of saying shehakol also on coffee made from instant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Tabory via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom Message-ID: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. Yosef Tabory From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 08:26:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170927152646.GD1177@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote: : Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of : the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel : minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)... Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah. I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian "Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon, they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation -- 10 yemei teshuvah. To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh. : Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, : the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not : wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought : that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh : Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh) had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom" in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify abandoning it. ----- While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef, let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in "Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi yontef nusach for the joke to work. Why are so many Jews overweight? Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we sing: Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein! Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8), apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates! GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:30:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:30:33 +0000 Subject: “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux Message-ID: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> >From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")? A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart" (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13). IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me) GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:29:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:29:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds Message-ID: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense that A gets more credit(schar) than B? My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish, etc.) Thoughts? GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 19:34:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom Message-ID: . Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz. I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. Specifically: Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912 Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928 Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940 (Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.) Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949 Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950 Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960 The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960 Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982 There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this machlokes. However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different, and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America (who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 18:20:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical > substance at all, ... I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical substance? I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* be removed by cleaning. Gmar chasima tova to all, Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:21:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? Message-ID: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Please see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v I personally have always used money for Kapporas was. This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly mistreated before they are used for Kapporas. IIRC a few years ago it was discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water or food and died. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:31:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had to be discarded. After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost everywhere with the kapporos chickens. Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim: it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here. I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko. But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:48:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical >> substance at all, ... > > I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence > that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical > substance? I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a modern person to wrap ones head around. > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must > be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* > be removed by cleaning. If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing left to kasher! All you've done is clean the surface. There was never a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on the surface. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:54:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7096234e-1e3d-84c3-bb8b-dcfebecbb79f@starways.net> On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 10:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170928170022.GC32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence :> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical :> substance? : I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for : a modern person to wrap ones head around. I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT) about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion: : On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got :> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is :> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean :> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the :> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... : If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get : it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I : always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance : absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel : possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we understand an experience intellectually. This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs, etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience. My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer, than on the physics of the objects being utilized. Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance (like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance" (as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the past agreed with. If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked: > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the whole pot is indeed tainted. I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 12:03:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v ... : This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly : mistreated before they are used for Kapporas... That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens, not the minhag. This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag. The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag. In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it? Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori. (It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.) And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and "ve'ein leshanos". Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa") or not been doing kapparos at all. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 11:52:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588ee3662a16491c9404fcc82bfe2e8a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom. Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 28 22:03:26 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them > a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate object such as money. You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. > Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 29 13:15:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the : >Maharil)... : : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather from his own money. (Shelah) : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a meilitz yosher before going into din. I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the pidyon of the person. :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree.... Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag vasiqin"? GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht : Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a : life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it : with an inanimate object such as money. : : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but : the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after : kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or : else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The : Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, : since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. : : : >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- : >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were : doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand : it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. : : -- : Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, : zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all : _______________________________________________ : Avodah mailing list : Avodah at lists.aishdas.org : http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org : GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From zev at sero.name Fri Sep 29 13:33:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > : >Maharil)... > : > : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it > : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... > > Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather > from his own money. (Shelah) As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... > > Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is > inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer > to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a > meilitz yosher before going into din. Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka. Plus, kaporos is not done right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend doing it as much as a few days earlier). > I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have > primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation? > I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the > pidyon of the person. The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. > :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. > > : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means > : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its > : pedigree.... > > Source? It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". > He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously > suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves > pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin > to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition > fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag > vasiqin"? The same thing. Although don't know who gave this heter someone must have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we don't understand it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:05:15 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog Message-ID: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one? From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:14:07 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to another book which I don't own). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Sep 30 13:35:00 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: If I can mix actuality with the idea below: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. Ben On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the > Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after > kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or > else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer > Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since > it's less embarrassing to the recipient. From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:22:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c1fa29c-aa4b-122a-0dce-bfe50d5e5e32@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 > minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of > Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). > > What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to > another book which I don't own). Shulchan aruch OC 649. See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like the Rambam. Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being covered in more red berries than leaves, etc. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 19:18:58 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov Message-ID: . A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group: > The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when > Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is > known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is > a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one > is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in > for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving > lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed > and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good > both physically and spiritually! When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos. My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov? I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos. Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years, I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic - allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running, Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote "Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".) So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Looking forward to your responses. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sat Sep 30 18:03:12 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171001010312.GA17048@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". : > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will : > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give : > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather : > from his own money. (Shelah) : : As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do : kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. : Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos : is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give : tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. : >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is : >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer : >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a : >meilitz yosher before going into din. : : Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama : and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all : of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) As you yourself write, epmashsis added: : The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, : instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can : buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. : >: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : >: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : >: pedigree.... : > : >Source? : : It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a : plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find "vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim. Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless. The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the chain was already broken for a couple of generations. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 21:05:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3040f2fc-ea44-2eaf-3016-6c25f3b8b9c6@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and > sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the > mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only > applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar one may buy the cheaper one. The second opinion is that even if both are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a third more for the better one. This rule is not just for esrog, it's in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b). > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you can)? If > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a > hiddur to buy one? It means neither one. You left out a word. The Mechaber's language is "*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish". One should buy the better one, *if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior one. If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it. But there's certainly no restriction if you want to. The gemara says "Up to a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:25:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If I can mix actuality with the idea below: > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 > > What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with > tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or > honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that > affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in > Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck. There's nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-) Especially on Erev Yom Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah. The scandal is that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah. If they shechted them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared. [Email #2] On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". >:> And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will >:> be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give >:> maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather >:> from his own money. (Shelah) >: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do >: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. >: Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos >: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give >: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person > to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. We clearly have switched topics. There is no other way to read the Rama. The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka. The Rama says that we should not change this minhag. Then he says how it should be done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white. *Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the person. and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam". It's a pidyon just like pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the poor, we buy it back from tzedaka. >:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is >:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer >:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a >:> meilitz yosher before going into din. >: Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama >: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all >: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... > The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor > person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly. The minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them money. On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable. See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned earlier. So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery. See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to the poor. (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.) > (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about > a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes > no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) Where did you get this idea? There's nothing about it in the source we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen. The pasuk from Iyov is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" that we will shecht instead of this "gever". It has nothing to do with doing a mitzvah. Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov. > As you yourself write, epmashsis added: >: The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, >: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can >: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this. Giving it to the poor is a separate minhag. BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries or something, but you think it's good enough for them. This isn't a logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money prevents it. On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy day). >:>: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means >:>: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its >:>: pedigree.... This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an old minhag". But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised what it was. "Vosik" does not mean old. You're confusing it with "`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; strong; distinguished". "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a distinguished scholar". "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee distinguished among the nations". "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the conscientiously pious men of former days." So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn because they can't sleep anyway:-) [Email #3] PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really. https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7 defines it in leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced". So even when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time itself but to the experience gained over that time. The etymology is not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy". It does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, but of experience. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 1 19:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" Message-ID: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> 1) Balaam advocates the destruction of an entire people. He is a hired gun (or mouth) who has exploited his prophetic gift and is willing to help implement a genocide for the right price. This type of individual has separated himself from all people, hence, this position of his is coded in his very name Balaam, "B'li Am," "without a people." 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is called an "aton.? Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of the physical. But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey, therefore his donkey speaks to him -- the inference being that Balaam has descended to an animalistic level, and that is the symbolism of the donkey talking to him. I see it as "chamor" in the sense of "heavy" referring to Abraham, since he carries so much more weight than Balaam. On the other hand, Balaam's donkey is called ?aton,? very similar to the word "etnan" which means a "harlot's pay? ? quitet fascinating since Balaam prostituted himself with the intention of fulfilling Balak's request. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.? Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 2 08:25:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: RMB wrote: > IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than > Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ > that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what > the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions > in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) > believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in > 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. Indeed, I recall, upon dealing with those various shittos while in RIETS, particularly as covered by Rav Charlop in a shiur of his, that Satmar and Rav Kook are a lot closer to each other than to Agudah & Rav Soloveitchik. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 09:14:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:14:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?What_is_the_correct_way_to_pronounce_Hashem?= =?cp1255?q?=92s_name_in_Shmoneh_Esrei_and_other_brachos=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170703161444.GC18193@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Halacha Yomis ... : A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D ... "We have : a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, : that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY : -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf : Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." First, we know from seifer Shoferim that different shevatim had different accents, such that Shevet Ephraim (like Litvaks of a much later date) pronounced as right-dotted shin the same as a sin or samekh. So how can we talk about a single accent even at Har Sinai? I therefore assume RSZE Hy"d was saying that you need to use your mesorah's patach-cholam-qamatz, as he spells out in the rephrasing. And that these vowels are what's misinai. Which is also problematic, as the division of various possible vowel alophones into specific phonemes probably didn't happen until Teverya. This next paragraph may make your eyes glaze over. It justifies the previous one, but feel free to skip it if it bores you and move on to the next point: Which explains why Bavel's nequdos don't line up one-to-one with the ones we use today -- one symbol for segol and patach and one symbol for qamatz qatan and cholam with a different one for. And the prior Israeli system fits Sepharadi pronounciation, fewer symbols showing less differentiation, but it could simply be less precise. The way we still have one symbol for qamatz qatan and qamatz gadol, or sheva na and sheva nach. (Unless you are using a "simanim" or other non-standard printing. Unicode actually supports this differentiation, if you find a font and a text file that distinguishes.) One symbol does not mean one phoneme. But it hints at how the locals viewer the vowels. Like Rashi, who echoes the Babylonian single segol-patach system when he refers to a segol as a patach qatan. (If you are still reading this paragraph, you'd probably enjoy our mesorah email list. Ask me to sign you up!) R Rallis Weisenthal (CC-ed), in his siddur in memory of Qh"Q Bad Homburg pg LXV (on opensiddur.org), lists traditional Ashkneazi cholam sounds, claiming that they're all dipthongs. ("Claiming", because I am not sure he's right on one of them): Poland, Austria-Hungary komatz chirik O^i [t]oy Lithuania, Russia segol chirik Ae^i [p]ay Northern Germany, Holland patach shuruk A^u [h]ow Southern Germany, Switzerland, France, Latvia, England, North America komatz shuruk O^u [g]o I think the Lithuanian cholam was originally more like /oe/ a sound halfway between /o/ and a tzeirei. (And the /e/ of the tzeirei isn't quite the same as a segol.) What he is describing reflects later Polish influence, a compromise position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio could help here. And I think the British cholam actually is rounder than a qamatz, like a long /O/ in English. And like a long /O/, there is a tendency to add a rounding /w/ (eg "blow"), but it's not always there. Maybe a dipthong of qamatz qatan and a /w/, which is shitas haGra. Not entirely different than what RRW writes, but also not quite as implied from his description. Anyway, he has a continuing discussion by R' Y Kramer againt using a /y/ or /i/ sound to round a cholam. Go to the above link. It's too long and two bi-lingual for me to cut-n-paste here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 10:03:51PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. : However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is : called an "aton." : Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) : suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of : the physical. : But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey... Thus the root "aleph-tav", meaning together with (eg "ito bateivah"). The Gra makes this point about riding a chamor being mastery of one's chomer vs being together with one's ason. I bet RAK cites him. He lurks here, but I took the liberty of CC-ing RAK so as to get his attention. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 11:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The Maharal -- preceded the Gra on this point. Here is a paragraph from the new edition of Explorations (anticipated 20th anniversary edition) The denouement of history is in our hands. The Mashiach will be revealed in clouds of glory if we are worthy; if we are unworthy, our redemption will be of a far less exalted nature. If we are deserving, the clouds will be revealed sooner; if not, the redemption will take longer, and the process will be slow and plodding -- but the redemption will surely come. And just as the clouds are an image that is laden with meaning, representing man's ability to recognize and connect to the metaphysical plane, so, too, the image of the Messiah as a poor man riding on his donkey is no mere literary device: According to mystical sources, this metaphor holds the key to the redemption itself: The Zohar[1] explains that the role of Mashiach is to ride on the chamor, to subdue the physical.[2] ________________________________ [1] Zohar Bemidbar 207a ???? ??? ? ?? ??/? ????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?????"?. ?????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??????????, (????? ??) ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????"? ?????????. ?????? ???? ??????, ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? Those of the right are all merged in one called "donkey," and that is the donkey of which it is written, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" [Devarim 22:10]. That is also the donkey which the King Mashiach shall control. (Zohar, Bemidbar 207a) [2] See comments of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael chapter 40. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? - ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ?"? ???????? ???"? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????...??"? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. Can I repeat that second line on list? As for the first line... In general, email lists are failing. And yet, I don't want to move Avodah to a medium that encourages quick and short answers. If Avodah can't remain a place for in-depth discussion, I'll let it fade away. Mail-Jewish, the grand-daddy in the field, is coming out with a digest every two weeks or so. Although it's healthier than Avodah in terms of breadth of contributor pool. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 07:54:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it Message-ID: Recently, someone quoted a friend as saying something about how doing something for the wrong reason could constitute making the Mishna Burah into an Avodah Zara. Or something like that, I don't remember exactly, and I spent almost an hour trying to find the post, so that's why I can't quote it. Anyway, that person was wondering where the idea came from, and I found the following in the current issue of Jewish Action, also available online at https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ > Love of Torah does not always translate into love of > people ? or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk > caustically noted that increased religious observance is not > always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather > sometimes it is for the sake of ?worshipping the Shulchan Aruch.? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 11:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad Message-ID: Mishnah Megillah 4:9 teaches us: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad just like he blesses for the good." That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are talking about two different situations: If one has actually experienced something, then he must bless God for the good *OR* for the bad, whichever applies to the experience. There is no need to be inclusive, to mention that He is responsible for both. But when one speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when he must mention both the good and the bad. Or perhaps he can speak in generalities, but he must be careful not to suggest that God does *only* good things, to the exclusion of painful things: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that He *does* good. The things He does is described mostly in terms of the life He gives us, and the miracles that He does. (It is true that at one point it we thank Him for "tovosecha" - Your good things - but that is secondary, coming after "niflaosecha".) But then we turned to the fourth bracha of Birkas Hamazon, usually referred to as "Hatov v'haMaytiv" - "the One who is good, and does good" - from the central words. And then it continues: "Hu haytiv, hu maytiv, hu yaytiv lanu" - "He has done good, He does do good, and He will do good to us." And it closes with: "He will never deprive us of anything good." Where is the bad? In what way is this bracha not a violation of this mishna in Megilla? I concede that we've left out the Mishna's word "yizacher", but I don't think that is relevant. It appears to go directly against what the Gemara Megilla wrote, "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad." Is there any way to reconcile this gemara with this bracha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 13:44:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/07/17 14:54, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But when one > speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when > he must mention both the good and the bad. No. There is no need to mention all the things He does. Nor is there any need, when thanking Him for the good things He does, to include also the other things He does. What one may not do is declare that He is *to be thanked for* the good things He does, which implies He is *not* to be thanked for the other things he does. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:15:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered Message-ID: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:17:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:17:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 08:00:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170706150007.GD11698@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:17:31PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? : If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at : all minyanim? By whom? In an alternate reality, where I went into kelei qodesh instead of Wall Street programming jobs, there is (would have been?) a movement by now called Mevaqshei Tov veYosher, a/k/a Other-Focused Orthodoxy (OFO). The OFO flagship shul, Yishrei Leiv, hosts AishDas programming, of course, and at this point in alternate time, has a number of ve'adei mussar, shiurim in machashavah and workshops in tefillah. And, in line with OFO ideology, the rule for who can correct the baal qeri'ah is simple. The only people who can do so are (would be): 1- the gabbaim, 2- the rav, and 3- next week's baal qeri'ah . (Everyone else should go to the gabbaim quietly. Even at the expense of an occasional repeated pasuq. But also gabbaim would need to know diqduq and be able to field the simpler questions of which mistakes actually require correction.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 7 15:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:51:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION Message-ID: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> I sent an email to AVODAH where I mistakenly wrote that Rav Rivkas from Rabbeinu HaGra's family did not write Be'er Hagolah seeking to correct their misspelling. I wrote Bay.ur Hagolah. NEITHER is correct. He wrote B' er HaGolah. there is a shva under the Bais. I ws mistakenly thinking of ppl mistakenly saying Biur HaGra instead of Bay.ur Hagra. My mistake but as least I was thinking of the Gra. :) Reb Joel -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:51:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] the desire to be remembered Message-ID: <000001d2f823$a6448d60$f2cda820$@actcom.net.il> I would call this the need for recognition or the desire for kavod. I think it is a yetzer akin to the need for food or the desire for sex, the yetzer hara that is 'tov la'adam' as Bereshit Rabba puts it. Without the appetite for food, we would probably die of malnutrition; without the desire for sexual pleasure we would probably not want to procreate, and without the desire for kavod/recognition, we would probably be sociopaths. Our need for recognition (desire to be remembered, if you prefer) enables everything from toilet training to basic manners to our desire to contribute positively to society. If we did not need the approval of our parents and our peers, we would never get far enough along the path of social interaction to learn the rewarding nature of altruism and doing good for the sake of doing good. The process of socialization makes us human. Without our need for kavod/approval/recognition, it is hard to see how we could ever be educated. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 14:24:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:24:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India Message-ID: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties between Israel and India? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 19:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India In-Reply-To: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> References: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 08/07/17 17:24, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol > worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties > between Israel and India? I don't see why. There were treaties between our ancient kings and foreign rulers, pretty much all of whom served AZ. And of course there's the treaty between Yaacov & Lavan, which was explicitly backed by each party's deity/ies. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 08:24:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION In-Reply-To: <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> References: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59624AA6.4070406@schnurassociates.com> at least I know that there are some people actually reading what I send out, so TY 2 Rabbi Ralbag, shimon, Capt Dan and I think Mendy for responding. as for the rabbi's comment, I am pleased to see/read that he has a good sense of humor. I also learned how to spell email in Hebrew. My announced CORRECTION reminds me of the incident with Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he had a prober for being Rosh Hayeshiva for KOL TORAH. he was giving his shiur and someone corrected him. He stopped, thought about it and then said 'taeeti" figuring he blew his chance for getting the job. Afterwards they told him he was selected as RY and he supposedly said "but I blew it when I made that mistake." Just the opposite they said. We want someone who is able to admit he made a mistake. and with that story, I end this adventure. :) B'yidedus, Joel > Rav Ralbag > July 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM > ?? JOEL: > ???? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. > ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????-??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? > ????? !! > ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? - ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? > ??? !!!!??? > ??? ???? ????? ?????-????? ! > ????? ???? ???? ??? ?-?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ??????? ??? ????? > ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? - ?????, ???? ????? ???? > ???? !!! > ??????? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, > ???? ????? On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, mendy stern wrote: > So you want to be the Rosh Yeshiva? Only if the yeshiva davens nusach HaGra! Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 19:36:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? ---------------- My shul does not, except that the previous (now deceased Rav) was very against it, quoting the Tur about embarrassing the Baal Korei. That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 20:00:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:00:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <04ba01d2f928$bced1db0$36c75910$@gmail.com> R' JR: R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? ------------------------ Maslow's highest level in his Hierarchy of Needs (in its later permutations) is self-transcendence. I think that's what you're talking about. Here's some further on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcenden ce KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 02:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:45:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ================================ We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 09:24:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: ?Pinhas? has turned back Chamati, My wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11) So, Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous, difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamati (my wrath), the two outside letters chet and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters, mem and tav, read meit ? death. The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meit) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai). (Also, if you remove the "W" (for Wilderness) from "wrath" and replace it with "O" (for Obedience to God), the ?orath? can be rearranged to read Torah). Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live. Norman Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 11:58:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:37am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote to Areivim: : In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla : attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. : : My review and analysis of his failed approach to halacha is at : http://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/2017/7/7/the-not-so-orthodox-embrace-of-the-new-age-movement Although RBR posted to Areivim, I have an Avodah question. To quote: > To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For > example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has > been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to > the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved > as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies > it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, > or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it > globally. And the article discusses things like auras and other New Age ideas that if traced back to their origins one will find AZ. Is it all that different than the gemara's discussion or wearing a fox's tooth, where even a Rationalist like the Rambam (Shabbos 19:13) permits? Darkhei Emori are allowed for refu'ah (AZ 67a). Also Rashi (Chullin 77b "yeish") which according to the Panim Me'iros (1:36) includes any act to the body to be healed, but not "spooky action at a distance" (to quote Dr Einstein out of context). The Ran (Chullin ad loc) based on this Rashi explicitly permits any act we know works to heal, even if the workings are metaphysical. So is the difference only in which metaphysics I personally believe is real, and which is -- again, IMHO -- "woowoo"? And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? Are the laws of tereifos, which say put despite later findings about what an animal can live 12 months with, and what not, typical and precedent to say we go with Chazal's science, law is law, ignore the science? Or is it an exception because tereifos is halakhah leMoshe miSinai? I could see the standard of medical testing being decided by that question... Or... when it comes to which saqanos one is allowed to risk, the standard is normal and accepted. If people tend to climb trees to pick dates, it is mutar to get a job risking a fall from the top of a date-palm. Perhaps medicine too is defined by societal standards. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 12:27:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> References: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> Message-ID: And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 14:47:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170710214723.GA29132@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to : be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this : desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's : knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or : general society)? >From a recent blog post of mine, The Interpersonal Aspect of Parah Adumah : To illustrate how the Yerushalmi works, I enjoy taking a rather extreme case -- Berakhos 7:1, 51b: 1. Rav Huna said: Three who eat, this one by himself, this one by himself, and this one by himself, who then mix together should bentch with a mezuman. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three people, so that each ate with an obligation of zimun, even if from different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may make a zimun] when they ate together. 1. Rabbi Yonah [commented] on that which Rab Hunah [was just quoted as saying]: If [the kohein] dipped three hyssop sprigs [into the water made with the ashes of a parah adumah], this one by itself and this one by itself, and mixed them [the hyssops] together, one may sprinkle [the person needing taharah] with them. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three sprigs, so that each sprig was dipped as part of a group of three, even if different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may may be used for sprinkling parah adumah water] when they were dipped together. ... But what justifies this comparison? Is it really an expectation that all groups of three ought to be alike, regardless of the topic or the sort of group? In 1973, Ernest Becker wrote a book on philosophy and psychology titled "The Denial of Death". To give a thumbnail of his basic thesis, here are some snippets from [38]The Becker Foundation's "Theories" page: "[T]he basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death." ... The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of mortality. Since human beings have a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we can transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving the symbolic half. Becker describes human pursuit of "immortality projects" (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things. Still, for Becker, the only suitable source of meaning is transcendent, cosmic energy, divine purpose... Becker develops an idea that strikes most of us naturally. A central -- and perhaps THE central -- piece of our drives to contribute to community and to pursue a higher meaning is because these both overcome our own death. What I give my children outlives me in my children, grandchildren and beyond. What I contribute to the Jewish People is eternal because our nation is eternal. What I add to the development of humanity from Adam to the messiah outlives me in impacting the lives of generations to come. Fear of death, the need to embark on "immortality projects" can push us to expand our souls to beyond our mortal bodies. As Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to his substance and body. Above that one is someone who feels that his "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above that one is someone who can include in his "ani" all of his household and family.... And there are more levels in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the world and worlds are his "ani," and he himself is only one small limb in all of creation.... Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and [even] all of creation. The parah adumah is about overcoming death. A person who witnessed or experienced another's death is told to go through a ritual of changing tracks... He not only sees three sprigs from a scrubby bush, but also is thinking about joining together and how he can join with others. How to turn that conversation around from death and its reminder that we are merely physical beings toward death as a drive to go beyond that. We should not forget the most cryptic (choq-like) element of the parah adumah. ... [I]t requires that someone from the community reach out to them, even at their own expense. A true uniting of someone who might be thinking about death and man-as-mammal back into being a person contributing meaning to a larger community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 19:08:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on > chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better > standards for testing medicine? R' Joel Rich responded: > The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud > certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and > correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with > sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what > was known to them in their time." > > I'd appreciate specific examples I recently tried to learn a bit about Techum Shabbos. I was very surprised to find an entire siman (#399, with eleven se'ifim), giving details of exactly how the techum is to be measured. For example, the first se'if specifies that we must use a linen rope exactly 50 amos long. I was very surprised that the halacha would write such things, rather than simply presuming that we'd be smart enough to use whatever procedures are generally accepted as accurate. This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do it. The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective one, and tradition might rule. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 21:51:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> R' JR: We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. -------------------------------- I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 04:56:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fb6f6b1-b8cd-4075-09ea-8f770a1b66bd@zahav.net.il> If the person is reading from a full Bible, I will just listen. If I am not sure what book he's reading from, I'll read it to myself. IIRC the Mishna Bruria takes it as a given that the reason most shuls don't read from the klaf is because of the cost. Given today's incomes and fancy shuls, that shouldn't be a factor. And yet, it is the rare beit knesset where they read from a klaf. Ben On 7/11/2017 6:51 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? > > KT, > MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 15:50:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170711225048.GA29349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be : corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to : themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach : Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. : : Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? I will confirm. ... WRT shuls that aren't leining from kelaf. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 17:09:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 18:31:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170712013159.GA6359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, : who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a : surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, : they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do : it. Say I were to use a shorter rope. Well, then my measurments would include more dips and bumps. Whereas the 50 ammah rope might cut a direct path, a shorter rope would have two segments, in different angles. The measure would be longer than if you just cut the tangent. (And in fact, since most landscape is fractal, or nearly fractal until you get cown to molecules, if your "ruler" were smaller than a grain of sand, you could probably measure 50 amos along the wrinkles of the surface within an arm's reach of where you started.) So, the length of the rope will actually change the final measure. The navi implies that a shorter rope would be /too/ accurate, forcing a smaller measure than necessary. The weight of the chain means that sagging is more common, as lest if you aren't a surveyor. Or maybe the exact strechiness of linen - less than wool but more than metal, is also part of the actual measure. ... : The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might : agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better : procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring : distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular : procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective : science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective And to reframe where I was going above in these terms: There are times when Chazal are not trying to establish objective facts. (Or, to revive another old thread and my hangup about how halakhah defines metzi'us: ... to establish as objectively as possible those facts that could potentially enter our subjective experience.) In nidon didan, the question would be: In order for a treatment not to be derekh emori, and to be allowed on Shabbos where medicine for a choleh sh'ein bo saqanah would be allows, does it 1- have to be established as potentially effect to the best we can establish it? or 2- have to be accepted as potentially effective by chazaqah, which is the normal rule for justifying presumption in cases of doubt? How objetive are we being asked to be? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 12 19:06:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:06:59 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not Shechted? Meaning, if we have a creature that cannot be Shechted, but it is not a non-Kosher species, it might be a Neveilah but be Kosher to eat because there is no prohibition on eating Neveilah. The non-fully gestated cow sheep or goat, even if it is born in the normal manner, is not classified in Halacha as Bakar or Tzon. See Rashi Chulin 72b end of Mishneh. It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 03:33:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170713103351.GD14756@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:54:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ :> Love of Torah does not always translate into love of :> people -- or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk :> caustically noted that increased religious observance is not :> always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather :> sometimes it is for the sake of "worshipping the Shulchan Aruch." In R' Shlomo Wolbe, Alei Shur, vol II, "Frumkeit" , speaks of halachic obervant not for the sake of worshipping G-d, but speaks to why one would "worship the SA" if it isn't about G-d. A translation of the opening: > Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge to connect to the Creator. This > instinct is also found in animals. King David said, " The young lions roar > after their prey, and seek their food from G-d." (Psalms 104:21) "He gives > to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." (Psalms 147:9) > There is no need to understand these verses as [mere] figures of > speech -- animals have an instinctive sense that there exists One who > is concerned about their sustenance. This instinct [also] operates in > man -- on a higher level, of course. This natural frumkeit [instinct] > assists us in our service of G-d, and without this natural assistance > our service would would be extremely heavy upon us. However, frumkeit, > like any other instinctive urge that operates within man, is naturally > egotistical and self-centered. Accordingly, frumkeit drives a person to > do only that which is good for himself -- [in contrast, positive] actions > between man and his fellow man, as well as wholehearted actions between > man and G-d are not fueled by frumkeit. One who bases his service on it > alone remains egocentric. Even if he were to impose many stringencies > upon himself, he would not become a man of kindness, and he would not > reach [the level of] altruistic service. This is what necessitates that > we base our service specifically on intellect... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 16:31:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:00:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3abd2947-8a52-7433-c908-731af71507b2@sero.name> On 13/07/17 19:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr > Gouraud of the US. Google misinforms you. See, e.g., http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1412.htm#20 Or, lehavdil, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/1935454 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:37:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> R' MB: The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. --------------------------------- Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which was intended for facial hair. KT, MYG P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:11:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20170714151122.GB32531@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: : Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which : was intended for facial hair. It says that the poor "waxed" themselves with sid; and I am assumign that's not for skin as sensitive as cheeks. The rich used soles. Was this as an abrasive? Is fine flour even abrasive, or (as I seem to recall of today's grindings) -- soft? I think the rich used white makeup. And benos melakhim used shemen hamor, which we are told is acidic olive oil from underripe olives. While I do not doubt that benos melakhim tried this a means to reduce hair growth (the gemara says it also ma'adan habasar) I do doubt it worked. More recently (meaning, up to the mass production of depilatories) in Europe, cat's urine (for the ammonia, a strong base) or vinegar (an acid) were used. Both were believed to prevent or reduce hair growth, not remove what did gwo. But both failed double-blind testing. : P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use : wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. Many NA nations also tend to produce far less facial hair than most Jewish men to start with. I guess people can learn to get used to it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714152753.GA14639@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:59PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not : Shechted? In his Bar Mitzvah derashah, R' Chaim Brisker proved that neveilah and tereifah were aspects of the same underlying issur. Thus explaining (among other points I do not remember) why the Rambam holds that a neveilah and a tereifah can be metz'tarfos to a kezayis issur. Which would imply that WRT eating, all non-shechted meat is the same, and the issur is the lack of shechitah, not the tum'as neveilah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:47:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714154729.GB14639@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies : that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that : contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad : just like he blesses for the good." But that doesn't mean he must bless for the bad whenever he blesses for the good. Which is I think the chiluq that resolves the problems you raised. : That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say : one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one : experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On : *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is : irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Actually, even painful effects of the same occasion. Like the textbook case: Inheriting a large some of money requires making both Dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. : Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are : talking about two different situations... I think they are both talking about the good and tragic in the same situations. The first mishnah is prohibiting someone from even implying in a non-response context that when experiencing tragedy, one can skip Dayan ha'emes. : So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually : followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It : turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is : mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that : He *does* good.... Mah beinaihu? After all, all His "Middos" are about appearances and how the effects of his Action look to us. And actually, it pretty explicitly says in one point that it's about G-d appearing to us as Good -- "'haTov' shimkha". But as I opened, I didn't see Megillah as saying when we offer general thanks, it must be about both. Rather, he cannot be the kind of peson that skips thanking Him for those things He does "for our own good" (to paraphrase the stereotypical parent line). And thus, no problem in the 4th berakhah of bentching, either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:08:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: . R' Meir G Rabi asked: > It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just > like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. Why can't a horse be shechted? Is it missing the simanim? Of course, it would still be assur to eat the horse because it is a tamay species, but would that prevent one from doing a valid shechita? (I vaguely recall a case where a choleh sheyesh bo sakana was prescribed pork by his doctor, and the rav told him to shecht the chazir.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:02:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of him that is generally accepted as accurate? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:26:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure > I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone > reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only > the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go > 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? I have no idea what you mean by "litvishe" in this context. Do you mean Nusach Ashenaz, or Yeshivish, or In A Yeshiva, or something else? Anyway, in the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls and yeshivos that I have attended, virtually no one reads the haftara to himself, regardless of whether the Reader is reading from a klaf, a printed Tanach, or a Chumash. And those few who *do* read it to themselves are (unfortunately) loud enough to make it difficult to hear the Reader. In the Nusach Sefard shuls I've been to, there much more people reading to themselves. In fact, the Reader often doesn't even attempt to raise his voice so that others can hear him. But I've attended Nusach Sefard shuls rarely enough that I cannot venture a guess about the percentages. R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:23:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:23:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185632c6b5e74915992256cfd1207daf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ because I assumed that one was not being yotzeih with that reading but one's own Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 20:00:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:00:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes > are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of > the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an > educational thing"? I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. There is a chiyuv for a tzibur to read the Torah, although not on any individual to hear it. Even if ten men come into shul after krias hatorah they do not have to make it up, but if it was not read at all then the tzibur must make it up. But with the haftarah even if it was not read at all they need not make it up; this shows that there is no chiyuv, and therefore nothing that can be said not to have been fulfilled. Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:24:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? Or to be less pretencious: *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos on the other side? My wife is a righty and we use joint accounts. We are both listed as owners, and both of our names were on the mortgage. Even if I were supposed to hang my mezuzos on the left, are we shutefim in owning the house and therefore it should follow the rightward norm? I asked R' Gidon Rothstein, since it was his recent post on Torah Musings that launched my wondering, and he felt that it would go by the assumption that typical people coming in and out of the house are righty, and the owner's handedness shouldn't matter. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 08:25:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> References: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/07/17 22:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the > baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? > > Or to be less pretencious:*Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his > mezuzos on the other side? I wouldn't expect it, because I don't see any sevara to differentiate between houses based on who the owner is. Mezuzah is (lich'orah) a chovas cheftza, and the house is not left-handed! (See http://tinyurl.com/y9btfa9c , who cites R Chaim Brisker, Stencil #3) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/2017 6:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes >> are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of >> the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an >> educational thing"? > > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let > alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply that it's not just casual reading? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170716193026.GA17994@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that : imply that it's not just casual reading? to strengthen the point, that "we" includes Sepharadim, who don't make berakhos on minhagim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 19:16:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28c39ae9-0df9-89c0-ea06-a5e1b0b700a7@sero.name> On 16/07/17 15:20, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let >> alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. > > But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply > that it's not just casual reading? It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a missed haftara. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:42:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The problem with OU DE In-Reply-To: References: <1500310874499.90870@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170718214244.GA27595@aishdas.org> On 7/17/2017 7:03 PM, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: > Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a > Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel > bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is > that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not > simultaneously. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote: : Why not? Bateil is bateil. See Chullin 11b. Dagim that "alu" into a qe'ara of meat may be eaten with milchig. But going on a plate of meat -- what does that mean? Does it mean cooking? Ashkenazim hold, "'alu' -- aval lo nisbashlu". It's na"t bar na"t. The Tur, the YD 95, the BY's discussion of the Rivan and Tosafos, Rama YD s' 2, the Shakh s"q 3, and the AhS s' 5,11-15 assert as much halakhah lema'aseh. The way you treat bitul, there would be no such thing as nosein ta'am. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:24:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: <596E7C94.5030109@schnurassociates.com> Our K'vasikin minyan at the Young Israel of Ave k in Flatbush, K & East 29, (45 minutes before HaNetz on Shabbos and YT, 30 minutes on cholo shel moed and RH), reads from a klaf only al pi HaGra and only the baal k'riah reads while everyone else just listens and answers awmen (no BHUS) -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos > on the other side? Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it on the right side of the one who enters." And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 16:47:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:47:22 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: R Akiva Miller asked - why can a horse not be Shechted? A horse cannot be Shechted the same way that a G cannot perform Shechitah. Shechitah is not a mechanical action performed to meet certain criteria - Shechitah requires the right person, the right animal and the proper action. The Mishneh Chullin 72b asks a Q we would never ask, in fact it takes a very long time to actually read and make sense of the Mishneh, so counter intuitive is its premise. Why is it that a horse is a Neveilah even if it is Shechted whereas a cow which is Shechted is not a Neveilah in spite of it being a Tereifa? In our mind, the non-Kosher status of a Tereifa is a consequence of its ritual blemish which in no way affects the Shechitah; of course the Shechitah should prevent the animal becoming a Neveilah. But that is not how the Mishneh sees things - the Mishneh understands that the Tereifa status of the cow invalidates the Shechitah - it is, in the Mishneh's mind, equivalent to Shechting a horse. The Mishneh answers that Yesh BeMino Shechitah - meaning, although the animal itself ought to be deemed not Shechted, nevertheless as a species it has an association with Shechitah so the Shechitah will, in spite of being imperfect, prevent it becoming a Neveilah. And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. R Micha already noted that this touches upon the [in]famous bar-mitzvah Pshettel of R Chaim. But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The Gemara [Chullin 113] requires a special Ribbuy to teach that there is an Issur to cook premature born cow with milk Gedi LeRabbos Es HaShellil. Why? Why might we think it is not like a regular cow? The Tiferes YaAkov explains that such an animal has no Issur Cheilev, Chullin 75a, which is unsurprising considering that it is not a BeHeimah, so we may well have argued there is no Issur BBCh; KMLan that it is deemed to be Bassar for the Issur of BBCh. Now think about this - a Jew may not cook nor eat BBCh If a Yid however is about to eat Cheilev, which he may not cook with milk since it is deemed to be Bassar, we cannot warn him that he is transgressing the Issur of eating BBCh. Why? Because Ein Issur Chal Al Issur - once the Issur of Cheilev is already in place the later Issur of BBCh cannot take hold. Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Which seems to indicate that although it is a Neveilah, there is no Issur to eat a prematurely born cow. [To be sure we would need to verify that it has not entered its ninth month.] Hence my Q - Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:23:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, > let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps "minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes? > Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read > at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is that we're supposed to be doing? In a later post, he wrote: > It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's > takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that > one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias > hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this > from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it > must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a > missed haftara. I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read. Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:31:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> On 7/19/2017 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay > when the haftarah is read improperly? I don't think the question works. Consider: we have a chiyuv to daven shmoneh esrei. But there are different girsaot, so clearly, exact wording isn't critical to fulfilling the requirement. So we already see that there are different levels of chiyuvim, and that we are more medayek on exact wording on some levels than others. Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to something like haftara than there is for Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719101803.GA11560@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos :> on the other side? : Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it : on the right side of the one who enters." : And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And : there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Besheim the Mordechai. The Shakh) says this is true even if the lefty lives alone or the whole family is lefty. Because mezuzah is a chiyuv on the house, not like tefillin's chiyuv, which is on the guf. The Be'eir Heiteiv quotes the Shakh, adding "vekhein nohagim". The AhS (s' 5) gives multiple reasons: 1- A house is made for anyone who lives there, not this specific person. Which might be the same explanation, might not. Seems related to the fact that we do not take mezuzos down when the next owner is Jewish. 2- He contrasts to tefillin, where the pasuq uses the word "yadkha" and we darshen "yad keihah", whereas "beisekha" is used to darshen the din that it's direction from which one enters. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 05:46:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84213f099d8841fb92a75e4a8d758038@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 04:27:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's > surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" > when it comes to something like haftara than there is for > Torah. We seem to agree that it *IS* possible to read the haftarah IMproperly, in contrast to R' Zev Sero, who wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be > read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't > be invalid. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 06:52:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> On 18/07/17 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas > chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, But that is key. What is a chiyuv, or rather in Hebrew a chovah? As anyone who's read an Ivrit bank statement or balance sheet can tell you, it's a liability. "Lotzeis y'dei chovah", or "being yotzei", means discharging that liability. If there is no chovah then there is nothing from which to exit; one cannot speak of being yotzei something that is not a chiyuv. Now krias hatorah is not a chovah on any individual. If one missed leining one shabbos one needn't make it up. Even if there are 10 men who missed it, and therefore could make it up if they wanted to, they don't. But it is a chovah on the tzibbur; if for some reason an entire community was unable to read the Torah one week they must make it up the next week by reading two sedros. If they don't then their liability has not been discharged. When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". Of course if it is to be read it should be read correctly. *Anything* that is read should be read correctly; there is no virtue in reading carelessly, as if one's words are of no importance so it doesn't matter if one butchers them. But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, and since not reading it leaves no undischarged liability on the community therefore a bad reading doesn't do so either. > Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim > correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is > that we're supposed to be doing? Suppose my argument is incorrect, and there *is* some obligation which the community must discharge? How long a reading counts? We know that the gemara's mention of 21 pesukim is merely a recommendation, since we routinely disregard it. So how small *can* we make it? By analogy with krias hatorah we can say that fewer than three pesukim is not a reading at all. But maybe the analogy is inapt, and the takana is fulfilled by *any* reading from the nevi'im, even just one pasuk, or perhaps even a single phrase. After all the whole takanah is simply in memory of the time when krias hatorah was banned, so we read nevi'im instead; so perhaps even a very small reading is enough to evoke this memory. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, >>> This illustrates why I suggested avoiding words like "chiyuv". Is our goal to be in a status of "no worse than not having read it at all"? Surely not! If we would be satisfied with such, then why do we bother reading it? Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I don't understand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:36:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: <51a89e09-5077-e733-156f-9027c6f70dc9@sero.name> On 19/07/17 13:20, Akiva Miller wrote: > > Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting > someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or > whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems > to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I > don't understand. I'm saying that it's not *required*, and therefore it becomes a highly situational question of balancing the reader's sensitivity and the tircha detzibura against a desire to hear a haftara that doesn't grate on the nerves. There's no "I'm sorry but if we don't correct him we won't be yotzei". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 12:43:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719194312.GA13614@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. : I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of : him that is generally accepted as accurate? Mequbalim in Itali had a mesorah from the Rama miFano (late 16th - early 17th cent) that beards were only appropriate in EY. The Ramchal's lack of beard was mentioned in the charges against him when he was drummed out of Italy for teaching a very messianic Qabbalah too soon after Shabbeta Zvi. Someone once showed me a Chasam Sofer and a Chidah which refer to this practice. But I couldn't find it. Meanwhile, I found Gilyon Maharshah (R' Shelomo Eiger), at the end of YD 181, says that kamah gedolei hamequbalim, talmidei haAri, who cut their beards with scissors. So, scissors is no my default assumption, which means they probably had some visible stuble, if not enough to qualify as a "beard". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 02:09:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> References: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> Message-ID: <19840673-e64a-c7e5-41b9-92f64dd10daf@zahav.net.il> Ikkar ha-din, someone who can't properly enunciate Hebrew letters isn't allowed to pray from the amud, never mind read the Torah or Haftorah. I don't know if there is a need to correct someone who consistently makes mistakes but there is certainly no reason to allow him to read at all if he can't do it properly. As an aside: one of my rabbis said that RYBS didn't correct someone in class who made mistakes reading the Gemara text but if someone made a mistake with a pasuk in the Gemara, then the Rav let him have it. Ben On 7/19/2017 12:31 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot > more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to > something like haftara than there is for Torah. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:11:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then > I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant. I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe "tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also. Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors, including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria Message-ID: RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing about the nature of the original obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 24 11:53:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah Message-ID: <20170724185345.GA20358@aishdas.org> In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61) discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads "leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving her a real gett. The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because "almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other misspellings that have only one possible intent. I was wondering if this is too fanciful: Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah" could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often given given in CE. Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could cross the readers mind. Maybe? Or too creative? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 06:47:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 12:40:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 08:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721@aishdas.org> One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 09:50:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:36:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:34:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:31:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:13:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 12:10:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:21:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:49:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> References: <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 23:38:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and historical. He brings parts of the midrashim about Avraham Avinu's early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for any other reason than to understand the historical facts. Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 26 July 2017 08:49 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Washing Clothes During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 2. The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 3. Menorah on Arch of Titus (Micha Berger via Avodah) 4. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 5. Showering During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 6. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 7. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 8. Re: alma vs. almah (elazar teitz via Avodah) 9. Re: alma vs. almah (Micha Berger via Avodah) 10. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 11. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/494286688/Ohr-Somayach-Logo-150sq_bigger.jpg] Showering During the Nine Days?! by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz tinyurl.com YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger , avodah The General Discussion Area for Avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"; format="flowed" On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , llevine at stevens.edu, Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 From: elazar teitz via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: elazar teitz , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:13:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? Message-ID: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:14:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: From "Religion Within Reason" by Steven Cahn: "To have faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . To describe someone as a person of faith suggests that the individual is strong-willed, fearless, and unwavering." Question to all - what percentage of the frum world have no doubts? How many don't think about it at all? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 05:11:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering during the Nine days In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: see: Is it permissible to shower during the Nine Days? http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/is-it-permissible-to-shower-during-nine.html [or -mi] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:09:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? I am in the middle of R' Mordechai Torczyner's (CC-ed, please include him in replies) shiurim on ribis. http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&category=0,234696 In particular, shiurim no.s 3-5 are about refunds. It's under 2 hrs total, and if you know something of the sugya, 1.25x speed is doable. The first lines of the source sheet to those shiurim is "Lamah yeish chiyuv lehachzir ribis?" http://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=529082 If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:17:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih but not a tikkun for the lav) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 19:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Torczyner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim >> was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. >> If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would >> be subject to maaser kesafim. ... > Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is > something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih > but not a tikkun for the lav) > KT Hi R' Joel, Indeed, the Ritva's view is that ribbis, once paid, belongs to the creditor. The creditor is obligated to pay it back, but the money is his for purposes including Kiddushin. Other applications include whether the borrower has the power to forgive the repayment, and whether the creditor's heirs have a duty to repay. Kol tuv, Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 10:19:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:19:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c1d64f4e4564ec7b59a1d187400d9bd@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." ============================== I'd appreciate specific examples ============================== Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== I finally tracked down a copy of the book and read through it-I?d simply say that one must underline heavily the statement ?the best of what was known to them in their time? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:09:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> I read Rachel Levmore's "Decentralizing Religious Authority" at Teaser: Overview Orthodox Jewish life used to be a simpler matter for those who wanted to lead one. There was an unspoken system in place. One could approach the local rabbi with a question. If he didn't know, scholars higher up in the "hierarchy" could weigh in until the question reached the "gadol hador." Despite the plurality of approaches which always existed, there was a definitive address whose opinion would be accepted by all (or almost all). Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone. The present circumstances, which have witnessed a breakdown of authority in general society coupled with the absence of an uncontested authoritative Torah scholar, has led to absurd situations. Lacking agreed-upon "gedolim" today, a void exists... Without any proper halakhic discourse between various rabbis who deem themselves to be leaders (even if they lack followers)... And so on, with a pretty sociological take on the problem, and how it applies to controversy over the halachic prenup. As is usual for me, I'm intrigued by the theoretical meta-issue. Given that we've entered an era that there is a dirth of gedolim whose rulings are followed across multiple communities and eidot, is there a significant change to how halakhah is done? And I'm not saying this is entirely about nisqatnu hadoros, and how today's gedolim aren't like those of my youth. Some of it is also the effects of universal education, google, social-media cynicism and echo chamber, and the social trends that cause the popularity of such social media, and other societal changes that made people less likely to respect authority that isn't fully in agreement with what they decided the truth should be. Returning to snipping from the article: The Internet is not the forum for halakhic rows. Rabbinic tradition prescribes that halakhic disputes be conducted in depth, not superficially through "virtual" statements in cyberspace. Proper procedure dictates that rabbinic forums be held where differences of opinions can be [19]discussed face to face. If that is not possible, then [20]scholarly books are written or [21]rabbinic articles published. Alarmist attempts to create fear among innocent lay-people cannot be considered credible halakhic writing. And: [I]t is not for naught that the Mishnah directs us to choose who is our rabbi: [24]aseh lekha rav. It is your responsibility as a God-fearing Jew to determine which rabbi you will follow, according to your perception of his righteousness, scholarship, and derekh--philosophy of Jewish life. For a variety of reasons, it should be a rabbi who lives in the same community as you, not least since he would then be familiar with the challenges and facts of your life. In the United States, the Rabbinical Council of America has assembled an impressive body of rabbinic figures... Visible links ... 19. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-plea-from-Jerusalem-to-the-worlds-Orthodox-rabbis-483210 20. https://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%94.html?id=FpsqQwAACAAJ 24. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en My first stab at answering my own question is to wonder how long halakhah has been centralized around a few globally known gedolim. >From the geonim until the late 19th century, were there any? And even when there was a few posqim the whole world turned to (eg the geonim), how many question did they go to the gedolim for? Wouldn't the size of the world back then mean that most questions were far more local, with the mara de'asra having much more of a final say, with consensus being more of a regional thing? If halachic authority is being decentralized, is that something new, or a reversion to the norm, to how non-Sanhedrin (or as the Rambam would have it, post-talmudic) halakhah supposed to work? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:19:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:32:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170728203214.GA6178@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:38:18AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and : historical... But not the fantastical ones. Zev and I are arguing over two things: 1- What that includes. Zev believes that the inclusion of miracles does not make a medrash fantastical. And in fact to believe so be apiqursus. (Actually, Zev said the believer would be an apiqoreis; but the question whether every believer in apiqursus is necessarily an apiqoreis is far afield. So I'll still to this less controversial subset of his claim.) I disagree. The Rambam associates nissim with nevu'ah. Someone who lacks the yedi'ah to get one isn't going to be around to witness the other. Therefore, aggadic stories of miracles placed after Tanakh are fantastical. While Hashem could still in principle perform nissim, the Rambam believes He wouldn't. (Even when the story is told of a member of chazal and their level of ruach haqodesh.) 2- Is there a default? Zev understands that the default is to take a medrash historically, unless it must be ruled out. Again, I disagree. Medrashim are described as metaphors and riddles. The story and its historical content just isn't an issue. You can't assume anything about a medrash being historical or ahistorical qua medrash. A good bit of history and a good tall tale can be used equally well for teaching by metaphor. Implying, you would need outside reason to assume one or the other. Which is how the Rambam then says that if the story doesn't fit how the world works physically, metaphysicall or theologically -- ie what that translation I googled up called "fantastic" -- insisting its historical when it can't be is silly. So: : Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are : other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could : attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Be happy, no one in this conversation does. In my understanding of Zev's view, the Rambam says that any medrash that isn't impossible (and nissim are possible) should be assumed to be historical. In my view, wondering about the historicity of the story misses the whole point of medrash. But if the story does not fit the way Hashem runs the universe -- which according to the Rambam would include miracle stories happening after Malakhi, and many of the stories before -- assume it is ahistorical. : early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at : the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for : any other reason than to understand the historical facts. The Rambam there has outside reason to believe that medrashic description; it fit what the Nabatean Agriculture implied abot the birth of their religion. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:00:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 05:00:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: True, especially in the MO/DL world. The site had an article a few months ago about how the MO/DL simply aren't looking for gedolim or they define the role of a gadol in way that strips him of much of this supposed authority. Ben On 7/28/2017 10:19 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 14:51:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From ?Religion Within Reason? by Steven Cahn: ?To have > faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes > beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . It depends on what he means by "putting aside" one's doubts. If "putting aside" means that one does have doubts, but denies this fact, and acts as if his faith was complete, this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and in general, A Bad Thing. It is comparable to one who feigns humility; the odds of an eventual implosion are too high. Rather, one must be honest about his doubts or questions, and work on resolving them. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:12:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Math behind kulan chayav Message-ID: <20170730031250.GA2671@aishdas.org> "Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince." Lachlan J. Gunn, et al. Proceedings of The Royal Society A. To be published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00900 Magazine article on said paper (H/T R/Dr Josh Backon): https://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html This paper focuses on the case of identifying a criminal in a police line-up, archeological evidence, and crypography testing, but I'll just use the first as an example. Sometimes a line-up is like picking out an apple out of a group of bananas. But usually, there is measurable probability of error. Whether it's 48% for a criminal who runs through the crime scene or the probability of mistaking one's kidnapper, there is always some probability of error. Now, what's the probability that no one makes that error? If 10 people unanimously identify the same person, is it more likely that no one made the rror, or that there is a systemic bias leading people to select the same member of the line-up? This paper shows the math (and has plots for various probabilities of error). It takes far fewer people than you'd think before a unanimous finding becomes suspicious. And the paper even cites the din as precedent: However, this is not necessarily the case and more confirmations can surprisingly disimprove our confidence that the defendant has been correctly identified as the perpetrator. This type of possibility was recognised intuitively in ancient times. Under ancient Jewish law [13], one could not be unanimously convicted of a capital crime -- it was held that the absence of even one dissenting opinion among the judges indicated that there must remain some form of undiscovered exculpatory evidence. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 07:48:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20). I am attending a Bris on Tisha B'Av. May I say "Mazal Tov" to the baby's father? If I meet a sick person on Tisha B'Av, may I wish him a "Refuah Shleimah" (a full recovery)? Are these also prohibited forms of greeting? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l rules that Mazal Tov for a recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B'Av since it is considered a blessing and not a greeting (Dirshu M.B. Beiurim and Musofim 554:63 citing Halichos Shlomo Bein HaMitzorim Vol. 15 Orchos Halacha 30). However, if at all possible, one should wait for a different day to express this Mazal Tov (Chut Sheini Vol. 2 p. 327). Our minhag is to perform a Bris on Tisha B'Av after the Kinos are completed, even if it is before Chatzos (mid-day), because of Zerizim makdimim l'Mitzvos, those who serve Hashem with alacrity, do mitzvos as quickly as possible (Mechaber, Rama 559:7 and Mishna Berurah ibid s.k. 26). Rav Shlomo Zalman was of the opinion that one can certainly say "Mazal Tov" at the Bris even before Chatzos (ibid). Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l however rules that the Mazal Tov for the Bris should only be said after Chatzos (Dirshu M.B. ibid citing Shmaitza D'Moshe p. 431). Although "Sholom Aleichim" should not be said to an Avel (one who is in mourning), the Gesher HaChaim (21:67:7) permits wishing "Refuah Shleima" to an Avel who is ill, since this is considered a blessing and not a greeting. For the same reason it is permitted on Tisha B'Av to wish a "Refuah Shleima" to a person who is ill (Dirshu M.B. ibid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 10:24:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:48pm GMT, Professor L. Levine quoted today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis: : Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" : "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend : is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20)... I'm going to use this to share the quick thought in my most recent blog post: The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. Tzom qal! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 11:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 31/07/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say > "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the > table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time that day is a fast rather than a yomtov. Though we still hold out hope that that was last year. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time : that day is a fast rather than a yomtov... That was obviously my intent. HOWEVER... We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent ge'ulah. So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust. After all, a commemoration of the ge'ulah after Galus Edom would be far more compelling. (I mentioned this to someone after Maariv, and he suggested that since neither July or August line up with our months that well, maybe it'll be Tish'ah beLeo. I don't think it has the same commemorative quality.) -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 03:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Menuchah Schwat via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. > So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it > Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust... Tisha baChamishi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 06:27:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 8/1/2017 6:01 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used to be a day of mourning?" Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 08:40:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:27:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: :> We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent :> ge'ulah. ... : Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which : is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha : B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used : to be a day of mourning?" What's that "um" about? The month names being Babylonian is a given sitting behind the sentence you quote. It's an often referred to Y-mi, RH 1:2 (vilna 6a) "De'amar R' Chanina: shemos chadashim alu beyadam miBavel." Then going on to mention some pre-Bavli month names found in Tanakh - Risanim, Bul, Ziv, showing how that all changes in Nechemia and Esther. Sure, when talking about 9 beAv the fast, we may well teach them we called it 9 beAv. But, as I suggested in the OP, maybe after the ge'ulah from Galus Edom, we'll do the same with the Julian / Gregorian month names. It will, after all, be a much more momentus ge'ulah, being final and lasting. If Anshei Keneses haGedolah thought it was appropriate to commemorate one ge'ulah in this manner, perhaps we should assume al achas kamah vekamah the end of our current galus would be commemorated similarly. On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:01:50PM +0300, Menuchah Schwat wrote: : Tisha baChamishi That's ambiguous. The chumash uses "bachodesh" to be clearer about which is the day count, and which is the month. Even if the month number is a cardinal ("-i" - fifTH) and the day is an ordinal (no suffix) the way you wrote them. You don't explain *why* you think we'd go back to the biblical system, rather than commemorating the ge'ulah from Galus Edom. After all, even the nevi'im didn't stick to the original numbered months. And I think my suggested parallel makes /some/ sense, if not necessarily what the Sanhedrin will end up deciding. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kinos: Hashem as Spaceman? In-Reply-To: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In Kinah #7 (Aholi Asher Ta'avta), the Kalir wrote "v'nihyeita ketas bechalal". To our ears this evokes images of loneliness and isolation, of someone surrounded by vacuum, light-years from anywhere and anyone, but what did "chalal" even mean to people with a Ptolemaic model (if that) of the universe? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:34:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 14:34:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av Message-ID: I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana ---------------------- I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it even is one), I think you are doing OK! -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 15:04:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <187d2f.769a1cbd.46b254d0@aol.com> From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah " >> There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. << Kol tuv, Ilana >>>>>> What you did instinctively was the right thing to do. Here is what Eliyahu Kitov says in _The Book of Our Heritage_: --quote-- It is prohibited to greet one's friend or acquaintance on Tisha B'Av, and it is even prohibited to say "Good morning." If, however, one is greeted, he should answer in a low tone, in order not to arouse resentment." --end quote-- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 21:51:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:51:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed Message-ID: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand that not everyone agrees with this position). Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can determine where the issur actually is? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 23:57:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB, quoting Rachel Levmore: > Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox > Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. > Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, > Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef were still alive and active. And if someone writes a similar article in another few decades, perhaps some of today's great poskim will have been added posthumously to the list... Not to be cynical, but could it be that one of the factors that makes a gadol universally recognized and accepted across Orthodoxy is that he is no longer among the living? Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 04:18:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:18:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed In-Reply-To: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> References: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 02/08/17 00:51, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har > Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess > information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can > certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand > that not everyone agrees with this position). > > Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur > karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can > determine where the issur actually is? *Any* case where we got new information. Take the classic case of two pieces of fat, one shuman and one chelev, but one doesn't know which is which, and then one later finds out. Before finding out both were assur; if one ate one of them beshogeg one brings an asham and the other piece remains assur. Once the new information is acquired the shuman becomes permitted, and if it transpired that one ate the chelev one must now bring a chatas. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 05:07:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from the OU: > The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra > Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as > greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" > (Mechaber 554:20). ... ... > > Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l rules that Mazal Tov for a > recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B?Av since it is > considered a blessing and not a greeting. ... ... I honestly don't understand the distinction that causes a "greeting" to be assur, while allowing a "blessing" to be mutar. I would think that "good morning" is a blessing. Aren't we praying that the other person's morning will be a good one? Perhaps the distinction is in the degree of kavana with which the "good morning" is given and received. After all, if it were said as a blessing, and received as one, then wouldn't we respond to the "good morning" with something like "amen"? Perhaps we can prove "good morning" to be a mere greeting, by pointing out that the response is usually a perfunctory repeat of the words "good morning", rather than anything serious. In this light, I confidently suggest that "How are you?" is definitely a greeting, because usually no one expects a response other than "okay" or "fine". What of the Mechaber's halacha of "Shalom Aleichem"? Surely we would agree that "Shalom Aleichem" is a blessing, no? After all, the response to "Shalom Aleichem" is "Aleichem Shalom", and I suspect (YMMV) that this is usually sincere rather than perfunctory. This brings us to the very core of this halacha: RSZA is drawing a line between greeting and blessing, and his halacha about Mazel Tov makes no sense (to me) unless "Shalom Aleichem" is defined as the prototypical *greeting*, and *not* a blessing. I can't imagine why this would be so, unless the Mechaber already felt that "Shalom Aleichem" was usually said perfunctorially. And that's sad. Can anyone offer a different analysis of these various phrases? Finally, it seems to me that "perfunctory" is a good summary of why we can bring American money into a bathroom, despite the words "In God We Trust" being on them: Those words have become a mere perfunctory slogan, and are no longer a real statement of faith. But if we have downgraded "Shalom Aleichem" from blessing to greeting with that same logic, then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? Do any other poskim make this distinction (either in Hilchos Tish'a B'av, or in Hilchos Aveilus, or for that matter in Hilchos What Not To Do Before Shacharis) between a greeting and a blessing? I'd love to see it defined more clearly. (There was a point in my life when if I'd sneeze and someone would say "God bless you", my response was "Amen". But I stopped that fairly quickly as people tended to find my response quite jarring. Maybe "God bless you" is also in the category of a perfunctory greeting that should not be done on Tish'a B'av?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 06:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170802132730.GB27820@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:57:08AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack : of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef : were still alive and active... In the US, recognition of R' Henkin and RMF were near-universal. And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. In Israel, I think the most recent candidates are pre-Shas ROY and RSZA. Although ROY's pesaqim are distinctly Sepharadi, I think it's commonly accepted that Yabia Omer is one of the few sefarim written in my lifetime people will be learning centuries from now. My mention of pre-Shas points to something I think is one of the causes. The search for "daas Torah" on political and societal matters makes enemies and cynics from among those who disagree. As for RSZA, RALichtenstein notes that he posessed a gedulah different in kind, not just degree [inevitable nisqatnu hadoros], than those we've looked up to since. I highly recommend "Im Da'at Ein, Manhigut Minayin?" . In it RAL defends da'as Torah as a doctrine, but questions if anyone since RSZA has been qualified to have it. To quote my own pitgam from past posts: A gadol is tall enough to see over our fences. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 09:05:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Eleazar Hakalir Message-ID: Yesterday during the fast, I was reading about R. Eleazar Hakalir, and was struck by the fact that historians aren't sure when he lived, with some saying he lived during Mishnaic times and others saying he lived as late as the 11th century. I realize that pinpointing dates during this time period is difficult, but a 900 year swing seems very unusual. Is anyone familiar with any recent papers or articles that attempts to zero in on the real date when this poet lived? Any additional info appreciated. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 18:25:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170803012513.GC16841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: :> I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, :> but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk :> hurting his feelings. : I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it : even is one), I think you are doing OK! I am wondering whether cheerfully (rather than pro-forma, yotzei-zain, replying so as not to offend) greeting someone in this situation despite 9 beAv is an instance of huterah or dekhuyah. (Thus overanalyzing your parenthetic remark.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 4 13:52:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: ?A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha *minyanim* questioned my saying "*y'yasheir kochacha*" to one of the *olim* (FWIW, I was the *bal qorei*) and, a few min.s later, brought to the *bimah* an Artscroll-*dinim* paragraph (from the back of its 9Av *siddur*) about not greeting someone; my response, as you might guess, was that "*y'yasheir* /*yeeshar kochacha*" was not a greeting. A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "*Shalom aleichem*", like M'gilas Rus' "*H' imachem* // *y'varechcha H'*", is also a blessing, but the "problem"? comes up when it's utilized as a greeting. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 5 23:33:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:33:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and fish blood? we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking liquid and almond milk? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within > their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 04:29:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <221F9E1E-C833-4DA1-83A2-577056D221BF@cox.net> R? Akiva wrote: ?.then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? I would say the reason is that Shalom is one of God?s Names. There was once a study done on people?s responses to ?How are you?? The respondent was supposed to answer in the negative. So instead of saying ?fine, thank you,? the response would be either ?terrible,? ?awful,? ?not good,? etc. and guess what? Something like 90% would not even have realized the negative response. In other words, it is very perfunctory when someone greets someone else in a normal setting. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 09:55:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table > and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher > but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. > What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and > fish blood? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? > we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table > at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond > milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking > liquid and almond milk? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring white milk looking liquid to the meaty dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? I suspect that in both cases, you are noting the explicit prohibition against doing these things and then you are presuming that these prohibitions apply *only* to these specific foods. Then, having made that presumption, you are asking why this distinction exists. I suggest that this is an improper procedure. It would be more correct to note the prohibition about these specific things, and then to *ASK* whether the prohibition also applies to similar things. You might find that the prohibition *does* extend to other things: Example #2: Soy milk. When pareve coffee creamers first became easily available, they were all soy-based. Yet the hashgachos warned us to serve it only in the original container, precisely because of the halacha you cite. Example #1: Suppose you have a lightly-cooked steak in your plate. Some "red blood looking liquid" is leaking out of the meat onto the plate, and is absorbed into the mashed potatoes. There's no issur against those potatoes. I'm pretty sure you can even mix it up into the potatoes deliberately, or dip your bread into it and eat it. But can you pour it out of the plate, into a glass and *drink* it? I don't know. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 13:44:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Lecture from Herzog Yemei Iyun Message-ID: <25bb89bf-b093-17da-6af7-7c80276a5d1a@zahav.net.il> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXeFDdchKY One of the lectures at this year's Yemei Iyun at Herzog: Rav Bazaq (Har Etzion) and Rav Kashtiel (Yeshivat Eli) explain a story in Nach (Isha HaShunamite) each in his way. In doing so, they try to demonstrate the differences in approach between what is called "Tanach b'Gova Einayim" and "HaKav". According to a story that I read about this lecture, this was the first time, after years and years of fighting (sometimes extremely fierce fighting) between proponents of each approach, that two people got together and gave a lesson together. There have been conferences where each side explains why their approach is good and the other side is wrong, but this is the first time that two people taught together. The lectures are in conversational Hebrew. Besides the demonstration of the different approaches, the lectures themselves about the story are fantastic. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 22:20:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:20:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom haAtzamut. Ben On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Micha Berger wrote: > >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. > > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? > > Akiva Miller \ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 07:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> References: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170807140514.GC15062@aishdas.org> : On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > R' Micha Berger wrote: : >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within : >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. : > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom : haAtzamut. I knew he was capable of it because I know several such stories. In the future, try to remember everything I wrote over all of Avodah's 19 years' history. It would save me time. I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning something that non-intuitive. Including when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 18:45:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:45:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with > the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning > something that non-intuitive. I was trying to come up with a snappy comeback, but the truth is that I simply have a rotten memory. Or, perhaps, the non-intuitive stuff is lost more easily, precisely because the anti-intuitiveness makes it more difficult for the brain to reconstruct the chain of links. We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. > when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. > RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if > it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." I wish I had been aware of these shades of gray when I was younger. Thank you for sharing. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 07:29:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:54PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is : how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is : the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult : to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical reasons given: 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish model.) 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the community. (The usual Chassidish model.) 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from DT in general when he left Agudah.) #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and not necessarily personal ones. Here we're talking about halakhah. So, I'd like to see if we can discuss the flipside of the discussion. Rather than asking about the heteronomy of following gedolei haposqim and why today's posqim seem to be failing getting that kind of fealty from certain large segments of the masses, what about the autonomy end? We have a very literate masses. More people can hit the primary sources themselves. And for those who can't, oir lack the patience to, there are more secondary and tertiary sources available in laaz than ever before. Joys of computerized publishing, which has made producing a book cheaper than ever. In this world, how much autonomy should a sho'el assume for himself? Which questions don't need asking? I presume a wide variety of opinion; I am more interested in various rationales than in any particular answer. What about the LOR -- do you have thoughts about when he should field the question, and when he should punt to his own rav or to a gadol? And does the ease at which anyone can be reached anywhere on the globe matter? Universal education, telecom, the web's ability to provide instand "research" are all bottom-up reasons our authority is being decentralized. With little to do on those elegable to assume that authority vs those of the past. Although the ease of LH and motzi sheim ra about those rabbanim with today's tech does enter into it to, r"l. If no one can become a navi in his childhood neighborhood, today's world makes it harder and harder to leave that effect. My own feeling is that anyone of East European ancestry who was not higi'ah lehora'ah who faces a new (for them) situation and doesn't get a sense of consensus from the Chayei Adam, Qitzur, MB and AhS should be asking a she'eilah. Notice that shows my own bias against popularist guides. Unless said guide was written by or recommended by one's poseiq as a viable resource. And in terms of autonomy vs heteronomy, I would be seeking a poseiq who (1) convinces me of the soundness of his reasoning; and (2) is willing to work with my givens on things like hashkafah and beliefs about metzi'us, where there are no rules of pesaq. As in RMF's pesaq about Hallel on YhA. (Tangent: Notice that there is little connection between pesaq and hashkafah on this one. RYBS, the Zionist, adhered to a meta-halakhah in which the barriers to saying Hallel are high, and came out against. As a compromise for LORs whose mispallelim won't tolerate that, he would advise the rav to pasqen that they omit the berakhah. Whereas RMF told Zionists that leshitasam, it would be appropriate to say Hellal WITH a berakhah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 08:45:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Kashrus of Braekel Message-ID: <20170808154508.GA12433@aishdas.org> They're now importing to EY from Europe a new breed of chicken, the braekel. See http://www.baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=37&ARTICLE_ID=90778 ... Members of the Eida Charedis' Vaad Shechita, prominent rabbonim and kashrus experts gathered in the home of Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita to determine if a new chicken, imported from Europe, has a kosher status. The discussion lasted for four hours! The new bird is called Braekel, and according to HaGaon HaRav Sternbuch, the bird is not kosher. However, in Bnei Brak, HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita has ruled it is kosher. The chicken was raised in Europe in an area void of Jews and Rav Sternbuch feels it lacks the `mesora' required. Wikipedia reports that it is indeed Gallus gallus domesticus, actual chicken in scientific taxonomy. And The Brakel is not cultivated for its meat, but merely for its egg-laying qualities. The breed is capable of producing 180 to 200 white eggs a year. This isn't remotely like the leghorn, a breed of chicken that has 2 "thumbs" and 2 other toes per claw, rather than the usual for kosher birds -- 1 "thumb" and 3. And it's accepted as kosher, in fact, the source of most of our eggs here in the states. But the breakel has normal simanim. For that matter, according to some pesaqim about why we can eat turkey (the context in which the kashrus of leghorn chickens most often comes up) we even accept Meleagris gallopavo, turkey, as being within the mesorah for chickens and they aren't even in the same genus! Third wiki-note, commenting on the two subtypes of braekel chicken that have since interbread into one: In the UK, USA and Australia, however, one can still find descendants of the Kempische Brakel under its old name 'Campine'. The Campine has evolved differently from the Brakel. The most noticeable difference is the hen-feathering of the rooster and the lower weight. We in the US are treating a bird that evolved (nishtanah hateva, if you prefer) from the breakel as kosher; no one requires checking if an egg is campine or not. It's not even like the mesorah has been silent; even if each breed of G. gallus domesticus needs it's own mesorah. So, lo zakhisi lehavin RMS's reluctance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 09:27:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> References: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <69647634-1f0b-8686-3b9b-f1fe2958ab37@sero.name> On 08/08/17 10:29, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning > to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical > reasons given: > > 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and > ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish > model.) > > 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the > community. (The usual Chassidish model.) > > 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would > ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to > Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the > current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and > doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, > and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from > DT in general when he left Agudah.) > > #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and > not necessarily personal ones. #4 All true knowledge is in the Torah, and finding it is a matter of making non-obvious connections. Therefore someone who has absorbed enough of it to do so can find the correct answer to anything, though he may not be able to explain how he did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 12:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hebrew manuscripts Message-ID: A database of ancient Hebrew manuscripts is now available at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLIS/en/ManuScript/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 18:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel Message-ID: . This past October (in Avodah 34:130) I mentioned a practice that I've seen growing in recent years, that of making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. I was learning about the issur of eating a large seudah on Erev Shabbos, and I came across something that seems very relevant to that practice. Form the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod Hashabbos" writes: "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 21:21:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:21:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142a02db-9198-65c3-9f5d-1b882fc5f525@sero.name> On 08/08/17 21:24, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of > appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, > making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." However, "to`ameha chayim zachu". Tasting a little of the Shabbos dishes, as opposed to gorging oneself on them, is very much kevod Shabbos, to increase the anticipation, like a sneak preview. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 11:58:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the : reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with : which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod : Hashabbos" writes: : "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of : appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, : making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." These motives have a nadka mina. If one fills up Fri afternoon on food they don't enjoy (perhaps it's healthful) or wouldn't eat in a formal or celebratory setting, one is running afoul of the SA's sevara, but not the PM's. In contrast, having significant amounts of Shabbos-appropriate food but not to the point of ruining one's appetite by the time maariv is over would be a problem according to the PM, but not the SA's sevara. Zev mentioned the case of tasting Shabbos food. The MB 250:2 uses the word "lit'om". The Machzor Vitri cites a lost Y-mi and invokes "to'ameha chaim zakhu" -- I think it's specifically te'imah. As in, less than a kezayis, no berakhah, not really eating. (Which is why I wrote last paragraph about "significant amounts".) It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. BUT.... The whole point of chulent is to have hot food in Shabbos lunch, to fulfill the obligation (SA OC 271:3) of making it the more special meal. (Rather than Fri night dinner. See Shaarei Teshuvah #1.) The AhS says one is not obligated to abstain from special Shabbos-lunch foods Fri night. But I'm talking about Thu night, altogether before Shabbos. O Seems to me that until someone finds a new "special Shabbos lunch food", Thu night chulent ought to be prohibited! Whereas one SHOULD just taste the chulent on Fri, and it is permitted (but sub-optimal) to have some with Fri night dinner. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 22:14:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:14:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Not just yeshiva guys. It has become a minor trendy thing for all sort of people to travel to Bnei Braq to get chulent. On 8/9/2017 8:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". > My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and > Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment > near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 04:43:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (=?utf-8?B?157XoNeV15fXlCDXqdeR15g=?= via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: The Mishna Brura clearly states that the reason for tasting on erev shabbat is "kedei letaken". This refers to tasting during the cooking process and does not fit with the whole kugel minhag. Menucha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 11:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] publishing trends Message-ID: I'd love to hear any analysis (or guesses) as to what are the percentages of different types of sefarim (both Hebrew and English) being published in the current era, how they differ from those in the past and, most interestingly to me, what are the drivers for these trends? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 15:37:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:37:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Milk, Blood and look alikes Message-ID: I fear that the Halachic posture of *Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to?* although making sense from a narrow perspective, actually invites Halachic disaster, and is quite incorrect. Halacha asserts all is permitted unless it is prohibited. Here is an example in which the Shach seems to assert that Maris Ayin is limited to its narrow description and is not to be expanded according to what makes sense to us. BP, those that have been found within a Shechted cow, require Shechita once they have walked about. Before they have walked about they do not require Shechita. However, Ben PeKuAh can also be created via natural breeding which goes on forever. So we can have a large herd of BP none of which are identifiable as BP. The Mechaber Paskens without qualifying, *until they have walked about* - that the naturally born BP all require Shechita. This would appear to suggest that they require Shechita even before they have walked about. And there is good reason to understand this to be the Halacha, after all in this herd there is absolutely no way to identify them as BP whereas those found in a Shechted mother are readily identified as being BP. And I presume that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, the Shach makes it clear that the decree that requires that they be Shechted applies only after they have walked about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 11 07:15:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Summer and Travel Videos Message-ID: <1502460917652.98832@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y8drmxm3 Kosher Summer and Travel Videos As you prepare to fire up the grill for the summer or hit the road on vacation, countless Kashrut issues arise: Can I cook on a public grill in a park? Can I use a hotel room microwave? How should one pray on an airplane? These commonly asked questions and many more will be answered in our 2017 Kosher summer and travel series. Your esteemed guide through this halachic journey? It's none other than Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of OU Kosher. View the questions and answers below! Can you cook on a BBQ that has previously been used for Non-Kosher meat? Can meat and fish be cooked on the same BBQ? Can you eat cut fruit from an uncertified vendor? Can you buy coffee from a non-kosher establishment or a kiosk? May you purchase salad from an uncertified entity when traveling on the road? What products am I permitted to eat from an ice cream store? What are the Halachos in regards to prayer on an airplane? What are the Kashrut issues with airline meals? Can in-room hotel microwaves be used without kashering? Is it permissible to take antihistamines or other medication without certification? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 13 06:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] piskei rid Message-ID: <591d6b28af34484fac75d4f2918958a9@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The bar ilan database notes that its version is from Yad Ha-Rav Herzog. Does anyone have a copy that can see who authored the footnotes? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 02:06:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 07:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken Message-ID: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. See the above URL for more. See also http://tinyurl.com/yckl2bqj YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 08:23:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From > http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h > Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that > he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. Since when is rabbi M any sort if authority in The USA? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 11:28:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:28:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> This whole thing reminds me of the one-a-generation broohaha over leghorn chickens. Leghorns and braekels are chickens, much the way chihuahuas are dogs, despire being rather unique looking dogs -- or chickens. Like other chickens, they are Gallus gallus domesticus. Not even a remote question of problems interbreeding. Every 20 years or so someone notices that the leghorn chicken has two "thumbs" pointing back, and two toes pointing forward, rather than the usual 3-and-1 we expect for kosher birds. And yet, white leghorns make beautifully white eggs, and so it is the breed most American chicken eggs come from. Actually, both it and the braekel chicken do indeed grab the perch in a 2-and-2 grip, once comfortably on it, they go to the 3-and-1 of the rest of the species. And like the leghorn chicken, the braekel chicken is a source of eggs in the US. However, not under the name "braekel". But America's campine chicken, which has the same kind of foot, was breed from the Kempishe Breakel. The question was resolved quite a while ago, which is why we in the US don't have to chase down which breed of chicken an egg came from. So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was raised, we were about to assur, and then it was found that in much of the world zebu was already being eaten as cow. And in fact, MOST tefillin made from gasos are zebu leather! The breakel, which is a normal enough part of the general chicken gene pool to get the usual taxonomical name -- Gallus gallus domesticus. But there are two subspecies of cow: those without a hump between their shoulder are Bos taurus taurus. Those that have such a hump, eg zebu, are Bos taurus indicus. But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can interbreed and produce fertile young, in which case how did any of these questions get started? The mesorah for chickens must therefore include oddballs of the min like leghorn, braekel and campine breeds, and that for cows must include the full min, both subspecies. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 13:42:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <692953b1-38ed-f530-7beb-1656bdc7942d@sero.name> On 14/08/17 14:28, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was > raised, we were about to assur, Very few were about to asser, because the view that a mesorah is needed for mammals is very much a daas yochid. > But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can > interbreed and produce fertile young This is true for mammals, not necessarily for birds. I'd put a different argument: Let's suppose that it *is* a new min, for which no mesorah can exist because it didn't exist until relatively recently. For that very reason we can be 100% certain that it isn't one of the 24 listed species, and therefore doesn't need a mesorah. And if it's *not* a new min then it's a chicken, and once again kosher (except according to Anan ben David y"sh). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 06:36:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:36:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn't this an issue, since they are using less than a revi'is (approximately 3.3 oz. - minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber's question) A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi'is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi'is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi'is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m'lo lugmav (half a revi'is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 14:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170815214945.GA13601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including :> the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha :> follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a :> shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow :> their minhag. Regardless of the shei'ur, so this is perhaps tangential.... The AhS talks about the difficulty in obtaining real wine, the kashrus of "wine" from soaked raisins, and thus the schnapps option. I wonder if so many rabbeim would have insisted on making qiddush on schnapps at all if wine were an affordable option where they lived. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 15:24:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: . R' Ben Waxman asked: > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot > right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the > members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset > on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the > right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine > no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose > money? My first thought is that this is a great example of a question that should be addressed to the rav of the beit knesset. There are so many factors that need to be weighed against each other, such as how badly the shul needs the money, and how many hurt feelings will be created by giving the wrong answer. As regards the comment "a sale is a sale" -- I'm not so sure. Sounds like a "davar shelo ba laolam" to me. Especially since we are considering the real possibility that a kohen guest might show up, rendering the auction questionable. Just my two grush. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 02:54:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Use of Stone Keilim During Bayis Sheini Message-ID: <20170816095450.GA3826@aishdas.org> See http://www.timesofisrael.com/2000-year-old-stone-workshop-discovered-near-where-jesus-turned-water-into-wine or http://j.mp/2v1gxan The Times of Israel By Amanda Borschel-Dan August 10, 2017, 11:51 am 2,000-year-old stone workshop discovered near where Jesus turned water into Only four Second Temple stoneware production centers have been unearthed in Israel Because it was immune to ritual impurity, the use of stoneware was rife among Jews during the Roman era ... A large 2,000-year-old Second Temple period chalkstone quarry and workshop was discovered at Reina in lower Galilee by a team of archaeologists headed by Dr. Yonatan Adler... A manmade chalkstone quarry cave was recently discovered between between Nazareth and the village of Kana. What is unique in this excavation is the additional find of a stoneware workshop -- one of only four in Israel. Although pottery was also in use during this period, archaeological digs around the region point to an uptick in stoneware during the Second Temple period -- likely for ritual purity reasons, as attested in the Talmud. "In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee also used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone," said Adler. ... "According to ancient Jewish ritual law, vessels made of pottery are easily made impure and must be broken. Stone, on the other hand, was thought to be a material which can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce some of their everyday tableware from stone," he said. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 04:45:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:45:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh Message-ID: . At first, I was going to pose these nitpicky questions on our Mesorah list. But then I found some answers, and I decided to share my journey with the whole chevra. If it doesn't put you to sleep from boredom, please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Shmos 1:10 - Paro starts panicking over the Jewish Problem. First, they're multiplying, and then, "ki sikrena milchama..." 1. What is the root of Sikrena? Kuf resh aleph, or kuf resh heh? 2a. If it is kuf resh heh - "if war happens" - then what is the aleph for? Is this a kri/ksiv situation? Does anyone explicitly refer to it as a kri/ksiv? 2b. If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? Why does every single translation and peirush render it as "if war occurs", or similar? Or do you know of any exceptions that I couldn't find? 3. What form is this word? My guess is that it is Kal, future, 3rd person feminine plural: "They(f) will...". That fits well with "proclaim", if "they(f)" refers to the attacking nations. But if the root is kuf resh heh, I don't know why the plural would be used. Is "milchama" some sort of plural or collective noun? Other relevant information: RSR Hirsch says that "sikrena" is a plural form, and therefore "milchama" is probably not the subject but the object. for the word's meaning, he refers us to Yeshaya 41:22, where this same word occurs. But as I see it, these words are not spelled the same: Where Shemos spells it with an aleph, Yeshaya has a yud. (I suppose Rav Hirsch considers this difference insignificant, but I'm not knowledgable enough to understand why.) I did find one lone voice who says that the root of "sikrena" is "read/call" and not "happen/occur". Namely, Mandelkern's Concordance. Yeshaya 41:22 appears on 1047d, in the root kuf-resh-heh. But he places our pasuk, Shemos 1:10, on 1043c, in the root kuf-resh-aleph. Another data point from Mandelkern: His opinion is that "sikrena" in Shemos 1:10 is a third-person plural verb. This is different from the second-person plural verb, which is spelled exactly the same, and appears in Rus 1:20 and 1:21, and in the Concordance on 1042a. I suspect that Mandelkern would endorse "*they* will proclaim war" as a correct translation. Finally, I tried a non-Jewish website devoted to translation issues. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7122.htm is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, and other similar sources. I probably could have gotten the same information from Mandelkern, but seeing their English translation on-screen made these examples jump out at me: Bereshis 42:4 - [Yaakov] said, "Lest disaster *happen* [to Binyamin]." Bereshis 49:1 - Yaakov said, "... I will tell you what will *happen* to you at the end of days." Vayikra 10:19 - Aharon told Moshe, "... such has *happened* to me..." Devarim 22:6 - When you *happen* upon a bird's nest... In all of the above, the Torah's word is spelled with a kuf-resh-ALEPH root. I find myself forced to concede that there is strong evidence (dare I call it "proof"?) that in addition to the usual meanings "read" and "call", kuf-resh-aleph can also mean "happen". Having said that, I was tempted to take this even farther. That page on BibleHub brings a lot examples where they translate kuf-resh-aleph as "meet". At first glance, I did not take it seriously; I felt that our common translation as "call" was more appropriate. For example, Shemos 5:3. where Moshe and Aharon tell Paro, "The God of the Hebrews nikra to us, so let us go for three days..." In my mind, this meant "Hashem called to us", and I rejected BibleHub's translation of "... has met with us." But then I read ("happened upon"? pun intended!) ArtScroll's translation, which is "...happened upon us." I was surprised by this, but I was even more surprised when I saw RSR Hirsch on this pasuk, where he tells us to look at Shemos 3:18, where he shows that these two roots (kuf resh aleph and kuf resh heh) are indeed similar. And so I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to translate Shemos 1:10 as "when a war happens". Does all this teach us anything about the small aleph in Vayikra 1:1? I leave that as an exercize for the reader. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 10:41:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish > or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? I don't think "proclaiming war" is something that can even happen in Hebrew. One can call *for* war, but the lamed is necessary. I can't think of any direct examples right now, but consider the parallel "vekarasa eleha leshalom". On the other hand we do have "ukrasem deror". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:25:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected cohen guest is the only option. If it is the aliyah itself which is sold then the cohen should be able to claim the shul had no right to sell it, and the choshen mishpat shailah is whether the shul or the buyer takes the loss. Obviously just my opinion not meant to second guess the mara d'atra. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? > > If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? > > If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:34:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:18 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I wonder if everyone agrees with the Machstzis Hashekel, i.e., would everyone agree that if you hold like the Taz the you can make kiddush on it? I was startled by the conclusion until I realized that "their minhag" refers to their own minhag, the the minhag of the Rebbes mentioned in the previous sentence. Still odd though, surely this is a psak halacha not a minhag. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn?t this an issue, since they are using less than a revi?is (approximately 3.3 oz. ? minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber?s question) > A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi?is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi?is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. > > Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi?is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m?lo lugmav (half a revi?is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. > > Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 15:22:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502922161954.91323@stevens.edu> Please see the article sent to me by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky that I have posted at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 04:55:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate Message-ID: A work around for agunot wanting to have kids: Rav Yitzhaq Yosef* ruled that an IVF child isn't a mamzer in a case of a married woman having her egg fertilized with the sperm of a man who who isn't her husband. Now an MK wants to use this psak to enable agunot to conceive via IVF and her kids won't have mamzerut problems (and have the treatment paid for by the state). * Yes other rabbis have given this ruling but when the Chief Rabbi gives a psak it gives a stronger basis for a knesset member to propose a law. See the article for more details (Hebrew): http://bit.ly/2uOmI6x I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A single woman is allowed to get IVF. Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 09:27:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170818162719.GF5755@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:25:19PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen : in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is : the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected : cohen guest is the only option... While I agree with that conclusion, the answer to your opening question was in RBW's post: :> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right :> after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are :> kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning... They sold the aliyah on the presumption that, as usual. And in fact, this "chazaqah" is so solid, RBS asked this eventually as a hypothetical; the wording he thought of was "were ... to come" not "when ... does come". Perhaps there was originally an al-tenai that simply people no longer remember. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:46:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818174604.GH5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:52:59PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha : minyanim questioned my saying "y'yasheir kochacha" to one of the olim ... : A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) : dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "Shalom aleichem", like M'gilas Rus' "H' : imachem // y'varechcha H'", is also a blessing, but the "problem" comes : up when it's utilized as a greeting. My rule: If said as a social pleasantry, or as a mindless playback of a recording your parents / society taught you, it's a greeting. But if you care more about whether the RBSO heard you than the person you're saying it about, it's a berakhah. And usually it's somewhere between those poles. With a skew toward the greeing end. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:02:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:02:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A : single woman is allowed to get IVF. I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei mi shelo nivra". But... This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless worse than never existing at all? (I adapted that line from arguments about aborting a fetus that tests positive for Downs. How many people with Downs hate their life so much that they regret existing?) : Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Marriage as described in Bereishis 1, perhaps. "Peru urevu umil'u es ha'aetz". But the intimacy of Bereishis 2 is not adressed "... al kein ya'azov ish es aviv ve'es imo, vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu lebasar echad". My version of "the talk" with my boys started with these two pesuqim. Explaining that relations are to serve these two functions. And also, while birth control can address one of these two, extramarital relations outside of "vedavaq be'isho" translate into exercises in weakening that bond, that gift HQBH gave us. (Adding now, as this bit would go over their heads: to approximate Adam Qadmon as humanity is described before Adam and Chavah are made from one into two.) And then, after establishing theological context, the talk continued on the usual biological and psychological planes. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 11:27:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses in Judaism Message-ID: R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/ He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American Eclipse of 2017: Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 14:10:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: . On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients. I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. > ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient > with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the > well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov > yisroel", just like many people today. And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then what did they do wrong? The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good description of it, I'd appreciate it.) The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food that even went by another name. And the very first time that they asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained. In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product. Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I wrote here 15 years ago: (http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03) > Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free > breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored > liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I > understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that > assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that > one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff, > and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap > orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice, > isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 11:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:29:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> References: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <529972d5-f946-74d5-e97e-26fbf8cbced3@starways.net> On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural > : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any > : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a > : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A > : single woman is allowed to get IVF. > > I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei > mi shelo nivra". But... I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view. > This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless > worse than never existing at all? Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 17:30:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:30:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, Cheilev and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. Is this correct? Can anyone offer some illumination? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 21:43:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4577e69b-191e-24b3-90cc-757555b83cd6@sero.name> On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... > Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I > don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at their lodgings. Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream? A grocery. >> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient >> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the >> well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov >> yisroel", just like many people today. > And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then > what did they do wrong? This is precisely the AhS's point. He strongly rejects the view of those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens when one does so. > > The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are > "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". > (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good > description of it, I'd appreciate it.) It's schmant in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet cream for coffee. Cf smetana, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour cream is zoyer shmetene. > The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to > what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food technology made everything complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel. (This is why the term "cholov stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used. RMF rejects the idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils its requirements.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 07:17:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: ' R' Zev Sero wrote: > No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type > of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in > Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least > one could before modern food technology made everything > complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to > *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, > etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. Summary: I concede. Longer version: I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as a resident of the 5700s. I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned about such things. I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the, there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly, there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them. There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in 1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the drivers for this change. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 12:04:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:04:07 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: <201708201904.v7KJ47OS022554@hsdm.com> >And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") . From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 22:11:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 01:11:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. > So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, > Cheilev > and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly > think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev. I don't know whether deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something that is identical to chelev so there is no question. (The difference may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone will think it's chelev? Obviously we don't worry about that because an observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to that conclusion?) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 08:37:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk Message-ID: . Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, but we don't hold like him. In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking, eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di" come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds. Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a - <<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds, who don't have mother's milk. >>> Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says it's d'rabanan. We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav", WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di" would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we learn from the word "imo"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 06:32:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse Message-ID: <1503322352892.87303@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 15:09:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis Message-ID: . Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads: > Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so > which bracha should be said? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for > which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the > acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and > great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. > It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. > Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe- > inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? > > Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and > Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh > Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which > are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states > that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's > sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many > commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. > As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses > are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. > > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of anyone else who comments on this question? Thanks! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 16:06:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses : > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah : > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). : : Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of : anyone else who comments on this question? The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses. The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human sin. Wholesale, not retail. The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer to the question in his words. The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who continue ignoring such signs. In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence". At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who aren't religiously moved by it. Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally used language of Wisdom and Intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 17:07:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> References: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b@sero.name> > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer > to the question in his words. That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's servant, the moon. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 04:11:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? Message-ID: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Something doesn?t add up. Every 28 years around April 8th, we recite the birkat hachama (last time, April 8th 2009, next time, April 8th 20037). Every month we recite the blessing over the moon. And as I learned, the ?oseh ma?aseh b?reshis? is over lightening but not over thunder and volcanoes. For thunder and volcanoes I thought we say ?shekocho g?vuroso malei olam.? Regarding an eclipse as an incredible and awe inspiring event, so is being in the presence of a child being born or in the presence of a person having being declared dead, resuscitated back to life. Is there a b?rocho for that? > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 07:16:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170822141651.LBEF22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> I heard a very interesting shiur at yutorah. Everything below was mentioned, plus one other thing: a great explanation of a gemara (or another Chazal) that says something like: "X" comes into the world (X might have been eclipses, or, if not, something related in some way) with four reasons: - not appropriately euglogizing an av beis din - (I can't remember) - homosexuality - the death of two brothers at once (or in battle) (He started the connection my explaining the ma'aseh of the moon's complaint against H' at creation . . . ) Here's the problem with my post: - I got to it via the "featured shiruim" on my YUTorah phone app -- and it's not there now. I went to the desktop site, and I can't seem to find it - I don't remember who it was (except that the rav who gave it over had a middle or eastern European accent) (My excuse: I went to western South Carolina to see the eclipse. The 8 hour drive home turned into almost 13 hours because of traffic, and I drove alone. I heard a lot of shiurim and my mind is pretty fuzzy . . . ) FWIW, -- Sholom At 05:40 AM 8/22/2017, via Avodah wrote: >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 >From: Zev Sero via Avodah >To: Avodah >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis >Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b at sero.name> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't > see an answer > > to the question in his words. > >That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points >out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that >eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or >moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means >that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens >is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or >mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, >even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise >and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when >Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. > >This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural >phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but >Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind >Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. > >This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry >at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them >and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't >they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it >removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun >is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's >servant, the moon. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 17:47:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:47:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness Message-ID: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> There was a discussion on Areivim about a particular person who was accused of committing a particularly evil crime. Someone posted, among other comments, ?I will add that the "rabbi" who committed these horrific acts is objectively G-dless. Apikores is too mild a term for him.? My response to this fits more for Avodah than Areivim: I know this man and most of the other players in this story. And while I haven?t interviewed him recently to test R?n TK?s assertion, it is my opinion that as reprehensible as these events are, it doesn?t mean that the person who committed them is Godless. Is any sinner Godless? More likely, a sinner like this carries around a huge measure of denial and/or conflict. But that doesn?t make him or her Godless. The Gemara says, in fact, that some sinners ? during the moment they?re sinning(!) are close to Hashem (Berachos 63a). I?ll elaborate: In truth, the argument can be made that any time a person sins he or she is Godless. Tomer Devorah in the first perek makes the contrapositive point ? that Shuras HaDin would dictate that Hashem remove himself from a person at the time of his sin, resulting in the sinner?s instant death. His response to that is that Hashem?s mercy is what keeps the person alive ? Hashem does not remove himself from the person, and keeps sustaining him or her even while he or she is sinning with the very power invested by Hashem in them that enables them to sin. But probably most times well-meaning people sin, their sin comes from one of the following three: ignorance, negligence, or lust. Ignorance: Not knowing or remembering something is forbidden. Negligence: Not caring enough to take care not to inadvertently sin. Lust: Being blinded to the evil that one is doing because of the strong desire to benefit from it. In all those cases, the person who is sinning is not thinking about Hashem. He?s ? in your terms ? ?objectively Godless.? But can he really be called that? Let?s talk about two extremes: The person who walks in front of another person who is saying Shemoneh Esrei (relatively minor), vs. the person who is not shomer negiah (relatively major). In both those cases it?s not that the person is not thinking about Hashem (which he admittedly is not), but that the person is not thinking about sin. Or, more succinctly, the person is just not thinking. Not Godless, but thought-less. And that can sum up all of the three categories ? ignorance, negligence, and lust cause people to sin by not thinking. So what happens when a person is a thinker? There are two possibilities. The person can be like Nimrod, "???? ????? ??????? ????? ??" ? he knows Hashem and doesn?t listen to him, although he recognized Hashem?s existence. That?s a plain old Rasha. But he?s not Godless ? ???? ?????. The second possibility is that that person does think about Hashem. He does think about his actions. He does know how bad it is what he?s doing. In other areas, not his weakness, he does keep to Hashem?s will. He is ???? ????? but he?s not ?????? ????? ??. Such a person, I think, is incredibly conflicted. He knows about Hashem and he?s rebelling against him on the one hand, while trying to obey him on the other. That person might be evil, might be scum of the earth, but he?s not Godless. On the contrary. And although we have to condemn such a person and his horrible actions, and we don?t envy his punishment in the World to Come, we might also be a little jealous of his relationship with Hashem. This may well be the reason the Gemara tells us that a person who says Lashon Hara about a talmid chacham falls in Gehennom, since the talmid chacham definitely did Teshuvah (Berachos 19a). How do we know he definitely did teshuvah? Because a talmid chacham, by definition, is a thinker. He didn?t indulge in non-thinking ? that?s not in his nature. And even if he had a moment of weakness and did something wrong, he certainly rebounded and regretted it the next day. (Contrast the talmid chacham with the non-thinker of before ? he just continues blissfully on with his life not realizing or caring that he sinned. That?s why we are not required to presume that he did Teshuvah.) A Godless person, properly defined, is one who denies Hashem?s existence completely. We have no basis, in this case or in many others, to assert that those are the circumstances we?re dealing with. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 23:43:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 06:43:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? On the topic Kvct Joel Rich Sent from my iPhone THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 21:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:06 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: It seems we agree that there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you are, eating what looks for all intents and purposes, to be Cheilev Yet Chazal were not Gozer to prohibit this due to Maris Ayin. Is the physical difference between Cheilev and Shuman more than the difference between fish blood and animal blood? Would there be no confusion between red coloured liquids, like wine and animal blood? There is no MA on Ben PeKuAh that is salvaged as a non-fully-gestated, no matter how long it lives and no matter how much it looks smells tastes and feels like an ordinary beast. Why is that so? Proposing that - IT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO CHEILEV SO THERE IS NO QUESTION - seems a little fantastic And indeed we should ask - why don't we worry that onlookers will think that beef Shuman is Cheilev? Is it OBVIOUS that there is no reason to suspect it is Cheilev, so why jump to that conclusion? I do not think so. I suspect that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies is as a product similar to the prohibited product. Perhaps like the position that Min BeMino is determined by name not by taste, Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 04:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Since when? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 07:09:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> References: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170823140919.GB32207@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:28AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: :> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat : Since when? Tangent: One of my pet peeves about Brisker derekh is how "chalos sheim" often is just begging the question. X needs a P, or else it doesn't really have the chalos sheim X. It's an empty statement, just saying that P is needed because the category needs P. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:13:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:13:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tax Evasion and Esrog purchasing In-Reply-To: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> References: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170825191326.GA15871@aishdas.org> Back in Sep 2014 Every year I mention the problem of buying an esrog from someone who > offers a better price if you pay in cash. Last year I was able to shift > from "li nir'eh it's a problem". RHSchachter reports that according to > RJBSoloveitchik, helping the seller evade taxes in this way is lifnei iver > (deOraisa, not "just" the derabbanan of mesayeia) and THE ESROG IS PASUL. They just put R' Asher Weiss's teshuvah on this subject up at : Tvunah in English Question: I recently went to a store and was told if a pay in cash then i would not need to pay taxes. If it is obvious that by me paying in taxes the store owner would not pay the proper tax on this sale to the government, am I allowed to do such a purchase or there is a problem of [lifnei iveir lo sisein mikhshol]. Answer: This would not seem to be the actual prohibition of Lifnei Iver as cash payment is inherently permissible and he can and may still pay taxes. There are a number of reasons a person would prefer cash payments, aside from tax evasion. At the same time, with regards to taxes we should generally assume Dina Demalchusa Dina and not encourage or promote tax evasion. It would seem RAW agrees on the halakhah, but disagrees that you should be chosheish that the preference for cash is due to tax evasion. Although in the first sentence the sho'el says the salesman told him so outright!? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:29:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:29:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Eilu va'Eilu Message-ID: <20170825192948.GA17720@aishdas.org> Because how can I /not/ share something on eilu va'eilu? -micha ----- Forwarded message from torahweb at torahweb.org ----- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:31:45 -0400 From: torahweb at torahweb.org Subject: updates to Rav Schachter's dvar Torah To: weeklydt at torahweb.org TorahWeb EILU V'EILU Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim -- both opinions are the words of the Living G-d." although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she'ha'Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She'b'al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah. The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether -- according to their perspective -- the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim." This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions imply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v'eilu. Even when we do apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" it does not mean that halacha l'ma'aseh one has the right to follow either opinion. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v'eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, "Beis Shamai b'makom Beis Hille eina Mishna", i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don't even consider the views of Beis Shamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d'hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b'chutz la'aretzm, even when dealing with a d'oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l'hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l'ma'aseh. (See my sefer, B'Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.) Likewise the poskim assume that when you have a shitah y'chida'ah, a lone opinion among poskim not shared by others, this view also does not constitute a slight safeik. The Beis Shmuel (Shulchan Aruch, Even HoEzer siman 90, s'if kattan 6) thinks that even if the Rambam agrees with the Ri Migash on an position not agreed upon by other poskim, this view should be totally ignored, since the Rambam was so taken by the genius of the Ri Migash (his father's rebbe), and would naturally be inclined to accept his opinion without even thinking twice (even though in several instances the Rambam does reject his opinion), this psak would be considered a shitah y'chida'ah and should be totally ignored. It was recently reported that a certain "beis din" permitted a married woman to remarry without a get, because it was ascertained that her husband was not Sabbath observant at the time he married her, and the halacha considers one who is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia to be like a non-Jew. And, they reasoned, we all know that if a non-Jew marries a Jewish woman the marriage does not take effect. This ruling is absolutely scandalous. First of all, the consensus of recent poskim has been that the concept of mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia doesn't apply today since so many Jews are not shomer Shabbos and the term "b'farhesia" has the connotation that this individual is breaking the discipline in the community (Chazon Ish and Binyan Tzion.) The members of this "beis din" would most certainly have been the first to say that such a Jew would not cause wine he touched to become prohibited because he is not considered to be like a non-Jew. More importantly, the view that a Jew who is treated as a non-Jew because he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia can't effectively marry a Jewish woman is totally ignored, because it is against an explicit gemara (Yevamos 47b) that states that even if a Jew converts to another religion and marries a Jewish woman the marriage does in fact take effect. We can't apply the concept of eilu v'eilu to this view; it is simply incorrect. Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v'eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v'eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does notmean that it has ramifications halacha l'ma'aseh. There are rules and regulations regarding psak halacha; this discipline is not hefker (is not a free for all.) The parsha tells us that the halachic positions of the Beis Din Hagadol are binding on all Jews. The Sanhedrin was a group of Torah scholars who were clearly head and shoulders above all of their contemporaries. They were the gedolei hador (the Torah giants of their generation), and the gedolei hador have the status of rabo muvhak for their entire generation, even for those who never even met them (see Tosafos on Berachos 31b and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 244:10.) The halachic positions of one's rebbe muvhak are binding on him, and the halachic views of the gedolei hador (who are clearly head and shoulders above the other Torah scholars of their generation) may not be ignored. None of the members of the aforementioned "beis din" are recognized by anyone as belonging to the category of gedolei hador, and even if it had been a case where we would apply eilu v'eilu, since the gedolei hador have unanimously rejected it for generations, no one today who is not in the category of gedolei hador has the right to go against this rejection! Rabbinic leaders throughout the generations are always concerned with the plight of agunos, but coming up with non-halachic solutions is not the Orthodox way. The Talmud Yerushalmi seems to hold that the concept of pikuach nefesh doesn't only apply when one's life is in danger, but also if one's life will be made extremely miserable this too falls under the category of pikuach nefesh, which allows one to violate Torah laws. The Yerushalmi (quoted by Rav Yosef Engle in Teshuvas Aguna) says that we would have allowed every agunah to violate the prohibition of adultery if not for the fact that we are dealing with gilui arayos (forbidden marriages) where the halacha does not permit one to violate the mitzvah even in a case of literal pikuach nefesh -- even to save one's life. The aforementioned "beis din" is doing a disservice to the Orthodox Jewish community at large, and specifically to these poor agunos, by misleading them with absolutely scandalously fallacious piskei halacha. Let the public beware! One must be of the caliber of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski in his generation or Rav Moshe Feinstein in the past generation in order to determine in a given case if the halacha permits a woman to get remarried without a get. POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the aforementioned "beis din", also see important letter from Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz regarding the "International Beit Din" . Copyright (c) 2017 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 09:42:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Poem For Elul Message-ID: <20170827164248.GA14698@aishdas.org> Saw on Facebook and wanted to share. I am not sure if R Bin Goldman intended the title to be "a poem for elul" (sic) and the first line read (in Hebrew, my transliteration) "Lekha Amar Libi" or if he wrote a poem titled "Lekha Amar Libi, which he introduced as a poem for Elul. I am presenting it as if the latter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Lekha Amar Libi [R'] Bin Goldman My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:18:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach Message-ID: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)? If not, where is its force grounded? Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own law as long as it doesn?t contradict the seven? Who would be eligible to be on a Bnai Noach court and how much interpretive independence would they have? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:19:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Moshe and aharon Message-ID: <846178C1-4E50-4DC0-9C2B-7D9B22F0E745@sibson.com> Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b ) two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to debate] Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse Kt Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 18:53:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:10 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... Message-ID: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin presented in an earlier message. The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product. Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting - please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when? Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera, see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its - Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues] R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. Would you please explain how and/or why? = = = = = = Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are 3 issues that require clarification: 1. Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protests? Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: 1. Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. 2. Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:34:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8326ab8f-6f6d-4868-0fd3-9a28f508abd0@sero.name> On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. > Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the important) distinction. I don't know how similar they look on the surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with different names even in English. > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Once again, I object. Who says so? > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be > performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to > the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 07:20:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828142031.GA10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin : presented in an earlier message. : The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis. As in: : R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the : application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. : Would you please explain how and/or why? This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an observer. See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur, not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half of the label on the "almond milk". But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat? Tangent: : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk... WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats and the milk were cooked together. As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar. After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to wait to eat. The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's. (My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?) Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs. But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked them together? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:06:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (MorrisIsaacson via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog Message-ID: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) Thank you, Moshe Isaacson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:20:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the : sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk : that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that : milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us : that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would : have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would : have been protected from those other ingredients... This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out something else... According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is that of kosher species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of the milking. Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched by a Yisrael. Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly, neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy more than chazal's taqanah. For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's ruling exempting powdered milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent > adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still > applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched > by a Yisrael. > > Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 10:52:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa : lechumra. Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines right above your comment. (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about without the gezeira. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:52:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828155218.GC10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote: : Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated : with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't resplond when you asked on another forum.) Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid. The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and Tzefaniah 2:14. But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol to it. The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll", because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French. Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would share that metaphor. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. > > : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash > : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa > : lechumra. > Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal > visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing > "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. > So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines > right above your comment. He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah. And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5fe6203e-5ca3-2df7-9dc4-ab23193ca9e8@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF > held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus > inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping kashrus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:18:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:18:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have : done. I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:50:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7a7271fd-d51c-6efc-2eb8-8d88dc02bf52@sero.name> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose > : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need > : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have > : done. > > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further supervision is needed. I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care about reshus. What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his employees or guests. The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours from the bottle into his cup. And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. So what makes it CY? This can be further split into two scenarios: (1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision. It was CY lim'hadrin from the moment of milking until this nochri bought it. But now it isn't. (2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at one point it was already in reshus yisroel. In other words, there was more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from the bottle. Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus nochri? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 15:07:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? In-Reply-To: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> References: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170828220709.GH31841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the : bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') : is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, : an eclipse is not included in this list... The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of an eclipse is for others, not Jews. BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah? Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said? I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im (mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see Creation in it but can't. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 13:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828202847.GG31841@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature : calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow : and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as : Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. ... : But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar : and non-Tzon, this non-animal? : Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence : my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You went over my head. I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73. So what are you asking? ... : Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, : the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even : if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur : will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and CAN be chal on it. As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type fatty deposits? Where this question is coming from: My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of a chayah is permissible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 17:25:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:25:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances Message-ID: Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis. He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined by the names we use to identify things. But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as far as I can tell, has not been addressed. Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the facts of the Halacha. I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by. We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino, is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste? Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop - stop trying to force the round peg. I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined. = = = = = Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked with milk from the Pesikta he quotes. Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, it must still be Halachically coherent. Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats. - - - - - Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained why there is no MA to cook these with dairy. He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different names even in English. Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are. Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi. Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim, take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is explaining. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:10:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:10:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? Message-ID: The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The answer is Yes and also No There is an Issur to eat Neveila but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat - RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2 Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah. Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by the Gemara, Chullin 58a. A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar, a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo. After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before being incubated] from unfertilised eggs. Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif]. Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it. What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision must be made, which is ZVZGo. BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa. Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher chickens when they hatch. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 16:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh Message-ID: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds." Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 19:54:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which conclusions may be drawn. > Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when > HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until > they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection > and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was permitted to them. But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 05:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it (and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead) However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers. They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish. Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container with CS. How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)? (they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 08:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ab46d6f-e25f-3389-5dea-28aabefa26c1@sero.name> On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they > are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were > growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the > eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] Then why not say the same of the hen's meat? It too was mostly grown before it became a tereifah! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 12:52:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh In-Reply-To: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> References: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170829195223.GA27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, : assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? : Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as : Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in : Hebrew. TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error tragic; I wonder if it's common. I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers: Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds... until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud. Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad. The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados". The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 13:32:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170829203231.GB27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold : that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the : status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan : according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their : keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the : absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all : kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his : descendants! Not to mention all benei Racheil. Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before we were true Benei Yisrael. Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a "nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah. Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other. Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as an issur chamur. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 30 12:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:48:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments Message-ID: A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933: As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . (Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues) We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address. It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure way of life that would bring us to God's light. The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps. Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split. A couple of notes: 1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause. 2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other personal sin), he had this in mind. 3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely within the Clal doing the sin. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 06:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 07:44:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it > sounds like "original sin." YL And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:35:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170831233516.GB22179@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me :> it sounds like "original sin." YL : : Did you think only Xians beleived : in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our : view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the : guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"... The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach. Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos, all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin. Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 12:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America Message-ID: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus see there for more background: On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land... On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein... REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US. Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6: Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them, they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness, not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished, as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia. Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain, without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with our very eyes ... This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel] was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150 years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather, that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times. (Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America being a "medinah shel chessed.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:43:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have several comments. The OU writes: > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > the home for Shabbos. Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs of the home." In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting the lights is part of that! The OU continues: > The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. > Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to > sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama), > women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to > me it sounds like "original sin." I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I think that's all the Tur is saying. It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive from the same event. Finally, the OU writes: > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > the wicks will easily catch fire. It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be *more* difficult to light later on. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 18:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:57:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh Message-ID: NEVEILAH Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the prohibition to eat Neveilah It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2 However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah. I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by Halacha so why is it Assur to eat it? MARIS AYIN The following are universally accepted 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha and even Minhag 2] AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta] 3] AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA? I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal. and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats, even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA. The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah - Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not. Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has no direct Halachic component to it Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a reflection of Halacha. Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden. Please provide some sources. As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is also predicated upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim. As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish? ISSUR BBCh I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor - only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook. The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out - the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:06:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:06:02 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a little bit will do] That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However, for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen. The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:00:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb'al peh Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression > that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may > disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no > one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within > the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from > Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions > made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that > seem problematic to our minds." > > Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, > assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not > so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies > as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent > in Hebrew. I could respond in any of several ways. Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial. I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash, until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that Nach is also included.) Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural sources, and with hardly any logical arguments. Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin: What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his stereotypes about mishnayos.) This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion, and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our practice is XYZ. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 22:23:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? Ben On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system > of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to > see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or > murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow > one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and > speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 06:49:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org>, <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. Kvct Joel rich > On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? > > Ben > >> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system >> of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to >> see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or >> murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow >> one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and >> speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkampgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:45:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based ideology. But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses. I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate, interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need. So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:58:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ > Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas > haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's > because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something. Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive, and they recognized this. The implications for today are self-evident. As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the Zionists actively fought against religious practice. -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:11:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote: : That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I : don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:19:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:19:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict so many murderers. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:27:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901152729.GI31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so : that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power : and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, : false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why : we continue to remember Amalek. R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8) RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can can pass as soon as we stop being a threat. Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as chinam. So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah. This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on what they did, and not let it Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't, why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred we feel once we realize they hate us back. The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how to address sin'as chinam. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:27:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only > superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any > other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't > mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it > became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly > damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:08:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:08:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias" and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell "Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote: : As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign : names? As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations. The use of : aleph and ayin always makes things interesting. The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE 126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them. It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.) My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud. There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef; patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud. On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued: :> The very point I was trying to make is that yes, : I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an : English word into Hebrew. : If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1 : spelling. Especially for more complicated names. As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)... There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others. I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself. The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide English sounds among the established transliterations. "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the "j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and an English "ch". The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or "Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's where I could see debate. Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only said by some who know her? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:59:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4318c19f-0790-10f1-6bab-106d72e8dd9b@sero.name> On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/ thing for the "j". The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi teshuvot discuss it. IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it was spelt gimel yud. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:34:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:34:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The role of gematria, and remez in general In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <488600f7-ef1c-3adb-b551-f3c00f739ff9@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170901163421.GC28962@aishdas.org> >From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria itself reached Avodah topicality. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim: > True. But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li > pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see > how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that. > R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other > opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not > one of them methods used to darshan Torah. And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:" : Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves : use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah... What is the role of Remez? We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh -- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.) Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat in the pasuq. And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod". But remez? What's it for? It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f004425-548e-142a-90de-48c5e91769b8@sero.name> On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. [Email #2] On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:24:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901172407.GB14196@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means : they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which would either mean: 1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency. Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't try to fix what you can? 2- They felt they were insufficient in skill. Or a third or fourth possibility. I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death. Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment. And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9, the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death. He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then. R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin" which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time getting permission to execute someone than they did. But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi wrong. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:52:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote: > > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > > the home for Shabbos. > >Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. >The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was >"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a >level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why >this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, >because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs >of the home." > >In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting >the lights is part of that! Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) >Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be >in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do >something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I >think that's all the Tur is saying. You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness, >Finally, the OU writes: > > > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > > the wicks will easily catch fire. > >It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully >understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain >piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and >difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a >charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. >In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be >counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be >*more* difficult to light later on. Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:32:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:32:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412cee4b-73a8-f3ae-bd8f-d8051cb68646@sero.name> On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually > oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:03:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, from Jewish breakaway groups). Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). Another (lesser known one): the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha. (IIRC, the S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.) My question is this: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and something comparable in secular life. Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from some other group/idealogy? (E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of it's Nazi association. But I'm looking for a better and more relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't a common design anyway)). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:07:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we : are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some : sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and : something comparable in secular life. Something so direct, it's not even an analogy. Jewish: Yichud. Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the opposite gender. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:17:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> >The following are universally accepted >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all >Halacha and even Minhag Is this the case? According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm , the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos). He also mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613. (As they each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) ) So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? (In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or so. So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did the general opinion change? Or did it?) -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 02:39:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:39:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath Message-ID: Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel during their Shabbath? Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, text (SMS) or WhatsApp? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 12:09:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality.? So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 03:38:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 06:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . I wrote: > In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then > lighting the lights is part of that! and R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of > homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? > ... > Given that roles today are much different than they were in > the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles > should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I > am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive. I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For example, if non-family are present, some might consider this non-tzniyus. But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other. > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which > are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights > with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is > no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem > with Shabbos neiros? As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that does not apply to Chanukah. My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 04:08:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: . R' Sholom Simon asked: > Can anybody think of a secular (ideally, American) law or > common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish > ourselves from some other group/idealogy? R' Micha Berger's response of yichud is a great example of where secular society has grasped the importance of gezeros which help protect us from ourselves. Similarly, secular society understands the concept of Mar'is Ayin and Chashad, and they express this in the term "Appearance of impropriety". (There's even a short Wikipedia page with that title.) But I don't think either of these is what RSS was asking for. He wants examples where the purpose is specifically: > in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, > from Jewish breakaway groups). > > Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos > (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). The answer that first came to my mind is that the original American colonists adopted various practices to distinguish themselves from their European origins. I'm sure there were others, but the main one that comes to my mind is the spelling differences between British and American English. For example, the Wikipedia article "Comparison of American and British English" says: "One particular contribution towards formalizing these differences came from Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionary (published 1828) with the intention of showing that people in the United States spoke a different dialect from Britain, much like a regional accent." Akiva Miller PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, where we are uneqivocally supposed to do it one way, but the other way is grudgingly acceptable after the fact. (Speeding limits are *not* a good example of this. The policeman will probably not stop you for going slightly over the limit, but he certainly could. That would be a Chetzi Shiur at most - a clear violation, even if not a punishable one.) If anyone has good examples, please start a new thread. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 06:07 PM 9/1/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >Jewish: Yichud. >Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy >about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the >opposite gender. Thanks -- but I'm looking more for something that is intended to separate us (us "regular Americans" -- whatever that is) from a people or nation or ideology that we find distasteful. An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). I'm looking for a law or practice that *separates/distinguishes" (havdil) - your example is more like a "fence." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest example I can think of is not secular. Mennonite (including Amish) men shave their moustaches to express their rejection of all things military, because when their customs were formed soldiers wore moustaches. > PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that > is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, There's the principle "de mimimis non curat lex", but that's more like chatzi shiur, which civil law considers mutar lechatchila. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:15:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <657b8edc-97f8-5fa2-45c9-7efe94200b60@sero.name> On 02/09/17 05:39, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel > during their Shabbath? > > Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, > text (SMS) or WhatsApp? If you know they won't break shabbos to read it, or at least you don't know they will break shabbos to read it, then I don't see a problem. "Ee ata metzuveh al shevisas keilim". It's not shabbos for you; it is shabbos for the remote instrument that you are manipulating, but that is not a problem. The same would apply to operating a waldo that's in a place where it's shabbos; it's shevisas keilim, which BH says is not a thing. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:28:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: <12a7adb9-e48c-7af7-3fb2-7ee96c2a3799@sero.name> On 02/09/17 15:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue > here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a > reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and > Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but > it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand > that we live in this reality. But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:51:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:51:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (1:4) writes: "When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel ... They would come to the Beis Din at the entrance to the Azara. If they knew [the din] they would tell them, if not everyone went into the Beis Din and asked. ... If the matter was not clear to the Beis Din they would discuss the issue until all agreed or they they would take a vote and follow the majority and tell the petitioners this is the halacha" The Rambam is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 88 which states the following: "At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Beis Din Hagadol. The Beis Din Hagadol was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah). If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide. After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai)." There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the Tannaim, the Gemara in fact related that they left their place in the Lishkas ha'Gazis 40 years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. If so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol in existence? 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:23:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: , <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: From: Sholom Simon Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:17 PM > The following are universally accepted > 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha > and even Minhag > Is this the case? ... > So... what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone > accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? As in many things, the Rambam seems not to have been noticed. This is distressing, because the Rambam tries to present things according to halokho, not according to medrash. As he says in his introduction to the Tenth Pereq of Sanhedrin in Perush haMishnayot, medrash is almost never to be taken literally, but rather comes to teach us things (but says that most Jews don't understand that). For halakhic purposes, the Rambam explains in Hil. M'lakhim 9:1, that Adam haRishon observed 6 things that he was commanded. One was added after the Mabbul, so yielding 7 mitzvos that Noah and his descendents were commanded to observe. Avraham Avinu was also commanded concerning Milah, and he took upon himself the obligation to daven Shacharit. Yitzchak added another two, and Ya'aqov another two. When rabbis say that Avraham observed all 613 Mitvot, it is obviously not meant literally: many, many of the 613 only came into force after King Shlomo built the BhM. Before that, there were a whole set of other mitzvot (such as that the Kohanim and only the Kohanim wereto take apart and assemble the Mishkan, and that the L'viyim and only the L'viyim were to carry the parts of the Mishkan). These were commandments from HQBH, but not part of the set of 613. When the BhM was built, those mitzvot disappeared and new mitzvot, which are part of the 613 count, came into effect. So before that no one "observed" the 613. And some of the 613 are only applicable to Kohanim, and some only to L'viyim, and some only to Yisra'elim, so there was no person ever who observed or could observe all 613 mitzvot. So when we say nowadays that Jews are commanded to observe 613 mitzvot it does not mean that any person is commanded to observe all 613; it means that there exist 613 mitzvot. Every Jew is commanded to learn all 613, however. So it is possible that the Avot learned all 613. But most of them were not technically mitzvot then, because they were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and before that no one was commanded to do them. So what does the Torah mean when it says that Avraham observed "mishmarti, mitzvotai,chuqqotai v'torotai" (sic, not "toratei) in Chapter 26? The same thing that it means in 18:19 "for I know him, that he will command his children and his house after him to obeserve the way of the Lord." There is no question that Avraham Avinu was ALSO commanded to observe what Chazal include in the term "Derekh Eretz" and the Rambam explicates in Hil. De'ot Pereq 6, which included such basic things as proper behavior and middot (and one of the main goals of the Aishdas organization, and nowadays is called "mussar"). Chazal say that all of those things have to come before Torah, i.e. before learning rest of the Torah. And, as Micha the founder of Aishdas can tell you better than anyone, there are so many, many things that one has to learn and focus on to observe these most basic of the commandments. So Avraham would have had his hands full teaching people those. Did he also learn all the mitzvot that would be given later? He was a novi, and so perhaps could, but one cannot say that he "observed" them in the literal sense, because how could one "observe" a law that had not yet been instituted and was not even applicable? Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 17:39:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when : American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. : (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their national ethnicity. I think this topic has become non-PC. Nationalism is even a dirty word in some circles; viewed as faschism, or fascism-lite. You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without running afoul of rules about discussing politics? But I hope that at least relating the two topics will provide something to think about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 10:58:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel > and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the > Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din > Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority and passed their 18 gezeros. The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the period of the zugos. Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 12:44:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:44:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > >> 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel >> and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the >> Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din >> Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. >> > > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority > and passed their 18 gezeros. That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. > The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. > Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the > period of the zugos. Yes that is exactly the question. Why didn't they resolve all of the Machlokes in the Mishnayos. > Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the > other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. Wouldn't that violate the issur of lo tasuguru mipnei ish? > > > -- > Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, > zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 18:14:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7333f45e-37cb-8ad0-ca8f-bffbb68048f8@gmail.com> Sun, 3 Sep 2017 Marty Bluke asked: > ...The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the > Tannaim... > so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence > there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students > had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol > in existence? > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and > Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? > Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for > most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. By '''in existence,'' the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The English-language Jewish history books that have been published over the past few decades follow this model. I have also done so in ''The Dynamics of Dispute,'' (Judaica Press) Chapter 10, ''The Control and Proliferation of Machlokess, Keeping the Torah One.'' Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 01:59:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:59:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:01:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> On 05/09/17 04:59, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both > David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never > attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females must be killed as well. Your question of how Agag's descendants, conceived the night before he was killed, managed to become so numerous so quickly applies here too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:17:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? Message-ID: According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. However, others disagree. Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/yblaj8cu If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:49:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:49:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it > into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? > Greek changed a lot over the centuries. I'm not sure if it even existed as a language at the time of Joshua, and the Greek alphabet was certainly much later. If Greek was the one of the languages the Torah was translated into then it would probably have been unrecognizable in the Hellenistic period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 09:17:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> On 05/09/17 11:17, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate > it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? 1. Ptolemy, not Alexander. 2. 72 sages, not 70. 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) exist today? 4. Even if the writing did still exist, would whatever passed for Greek in 1271 BCE have been intelligible in 271 BCE? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:36:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:36:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/5/2017 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. > However, others disagree. ... > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 > languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages > to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek > translation? Well, for one thing, it was Ptolemy, rather than Alexander. But for another, maybe it wasn't necessary. Perhaps if they'd simply asked for the authoritative Greek translation, they'd have gotten it, and any number of distortions of the Torah caused by the Septuagint wouldn't have happened. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:20:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> References: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170905182040.GB2253@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:17:10PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the : writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure : to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) : exist today? Rishonim on Yehoshua also argue how many such monuments there were. For example Rashi (at least as explained in Gur Aryeih) has three copies: one in the Yaedrin, one on the mizbeiach on Har Eivel (which is named in Devarim) and one at Gilgal. AND there is a machloqes tanna'im (Sotah 35b) about how they were written. But I think both shitos hold they were engraced. R' Shimon says that the stones were plastered, and then the words were engraved into the plaster. R' Yehudah held the stones were engraved, and then plastered on top of them. R' Yehudah's position sounds like it's describing more permanent writing, but how would you get to see it? You would not only need to peel off the plaster, the plaster could well get into the engraved letters. To address the original question: Ezra haSofer used majority to produce the mesoretic text, leaving us with a sefer that didn't match any of the copies found. Why didn't he check the Hebrew copy/ies from the monunemnt(s)? Wouldn't a text engraved by people who met MRAH be more authoritative than any of them? (All this assuming, as is the post I'm replying to, that they contained the whole Torah. That is the shitah we're trying to understand, no?) So it would seem to me that just as we have no idea how to find this monument / these monuments, even if the writing is still legible, they were already unavailable in Ezra's day. Unsurprising, given how much more pragmatic and used knowledge was lost. And even if they did know where to find it, either the writing wore off the plaster, or perhaps the plaster was too embedded after all those centuries to be picked off to read the stone. Regardless of the shift in Greek, the stones weren't even usable when the target was the original Hebrew. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170905184626.GC2253@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:17:58PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >The following are universally accepted : >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all : >Halacha and even Minhag : : Is this the case? In a footnote to one of his father-in-law's maamarim, RMMS (the LR), writes that this is meant that they did so "beruchnius, velo begashmius": Some mitzvos they "only" fulfilled the point of the mitzvah without physically doing the mitzvah. E.g. tefillin, with its mention of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. Others, they did perform the mitzvah physically, but still they only did so to accomplish the ruchnius -- it was only incidentally physical, and only sometimes in the same form. See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31608&st=&pgnum=137 For example (not given there), the Zohar links Yaaqov's spotted sticks and changing the coats of sheep to the mitzvah of tefillin. But the sticks didn't become qadosh, because uplifting and redeeming the gashmi wasn't part of the plan. There is more in Liqutei Sichos on Lekh Lekha www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/68627/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Lech-Lecha.htm Given RMMS's relationship to shitas Rashi, and our stereotype that chassidus tends to take maximalist positions, I thought this position would be somewhat interesting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 13:30:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:30:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> Message-ID: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females > must be killed as well. How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what the mitzvah and the dinim were? Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently no one informed him. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 20:43:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 05/09/17 16:30, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females >> must be killed as well. > > How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what > the mitzvah and the dinim were? They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 07:45:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:43:20PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe : taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of : "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in : front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never : knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so : angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. BB 21b. I think he concluded said rebbe (Yoav) did it as intentional ziyuf, not an error. R Mordechai Breuer concludes that the semichut (i.e. the "X of Y" form of the word for X) for "zakhar" could follow a variant conjugation and come out "zekher". And while it's hard to picture confusing "z'khar" and "zeikher", "zekher" and "zeikher" is much easier. The "zekher" vs "zeikher" debate over what the Gra had for Parashas Zakhor was over which means the Gra's intent was to tell us the word means "reminder / memorial" rather than "memory". The mesorah is "zeikher". But if zekher could mean both "males of" and "memory of", the mistake is VERY easy. (Not that RMB would worry about the possibility of the Gra disagreeing with the mesoretic niqud.) But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? It's strange. In our culture, it would be the "hot topic" of study for the weeks leading into the war... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 11:48:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > error. No. Why would he do that? The Rishonim discuss whether the rebbe himself didn't know the correct pronunciation, or whether he knew it and therefore taught it corrrectly, but didn't pay enough attention to how each boy was pronouncing it, so never noticed that young Yoav had misheard him and was reading "z'char". > But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 15:51:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an : >error. : No. Why would he do that? A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't get clarification /before/ the war? And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most of the animals? Actually, if you figure the remaining animals were for qorbanos, he was planning on all them being killed. A random reenactment of Yericho? Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 19:12:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> On 06/09/17 18:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > : >error. > > : No. Why would he do that? > > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. I don't understand why you keep bringing David up. What does he have to do with this story? The story is about Yoav, not David. And I repeat my question, why would Yoav's rebbe intentionally corrupt the pasuk? Why would Yoav even suspect him of it? > :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? > > : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. So how does that make Yoav a gadol? > And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? Why would it even occur to him that Yoav had such a misunderstanding? > And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most > of the animals? Do you mean Shaul? Perhaps Yoav didn't know the details of what had happened all those years ago. In fact how many people ever knew about Shmuel's rebuke of Shaul? It may have been secret by the king's order, and not spoken about, so Yoav may never even have heard of it. > Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when > it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Again, Yoav thought he had it right. He didn't even know that there was anything he needed to ask. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 00:02:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi@opengemara.org via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3FF2B345-8199-48FC-A3BD-6A89FC2540F9@opengemara.org> On September 6, 2017 3:51pm PDT, Micha Berger wrote: ... > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. .. >: Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? The Gemara (Bava Basra 21b) says that the issue was "???? ???? ????? ?' ???? [arur oseh melekhes H' remiyah -mb]" -- that the teacher should be more attentive (also, it fits into the Sugya there -- that a teacher who is medayek is better than one who's fast). Also, there's a machlokes in Sanhedrin if Yoav was a good person who made mistakes or if he was evil but found Dovid Hamelech to strong. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 09:45:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:45:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: R' Martin Bluke asked: > 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says > hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash > states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night > and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. > > However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought > Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if > Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David > and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to > wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out Amalek. First the data: * The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters. * The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh * As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's Pelishti stronghold. * Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a problem. So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul. Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans, but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert. So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them, because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites, Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself. Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command. Ad kaan. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 11:15:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Practices of the Tochacha" Message-ID: Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well written and very interesting. http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 12:54:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170907195348.KNNX30763.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: >: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when >: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. >: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). > >Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have >recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken >to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their >national ethnicity. . . . > >You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without >running afoul of rules about discussing politics? Perhaps. Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable with respect to Americans and the American Revolution! Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 14:24:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170907212448.GC15354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? : http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation: All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 15:38:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170907223856.GD15354@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" : d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its : mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? : : Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, : but we don't hold like him. Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4. It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20. ... : We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from : Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus : seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's : significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, : suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later (you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted the gezeira. Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely. : So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev, not so much. I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo" was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo" rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get that conclusion from "sevasheil". And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim lemiqra. But it crashed down. Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 23:55:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> Message-ID: Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks with him the rest of life. Ben On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there > was anything he needed to ask. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 11:55:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 13:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:06:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote: : I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw : it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather : than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," : just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. R Mordechai Breuer On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote: : How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him : what the mitzvah and the dinim were? : Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous : mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know : that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently : no one informed him. And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav was strongly deferential to David. Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the questions as to why. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 14:02:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything > about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a > unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav > was strongly deferential to David. I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. Suppose you're a caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which includes liver. You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, and I agree. You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 9 19:13:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur Message-ID: RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh [but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein Issur Chal Al Issur. So how is it that RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 03:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: > By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' > Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources > that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol > could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and > Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam says? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:18:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to function normally. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:43:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:43:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the > time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to > function normally. And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way. The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin was not functioning normally. [Email #2. -micha] One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 07:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91da4a07-6dcd-bc04-b9e0-38326532931d@sero.name> On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod to both sides. (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 10:02:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : While there may have : been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, : why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam : says? Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin, when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin. (Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.) So, what happened? My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed resolution by higher courts. IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 15:32:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45eac523-5fc8-1a2c-0c9a-256d54c2e054@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700), when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704, while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate, and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards. There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows Beis Hillel. Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become the standard one. All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 20:42:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> Message-ID: <6c5042b2-7703-92b5-e001-b2e5bc111010@zahav.net.il> In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these issues when instructing the soldiers? Ben On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 01:20:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the > one on smicha What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. [Email #2] On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different > conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed > resolution by higher courts. > > IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. > > To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of > valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 06:23:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha" > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. No, they weren't. BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they started in the very last years before it, when things were far from normal functioning. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170911151131.GF24527@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? : Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis : Sheini. But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis. I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a "veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule. The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer. Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq, for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al devarav, for even these greats weren't. So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the best answer to your question. And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to the late amoraim? Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why (leshitas haRambam) the question was still around? : On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. :> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of :> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? : The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white : approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim : "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything : in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying : that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini. (Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's just projecting.) There is a difference between 1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah saying it means the last two are in reversed order; and 2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this idea would be kosher. The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin. And yet, multiple norms would co-exist. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the destruction of Bayit Sheni. Lisa On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis > Sheini. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 07:13:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories Message-ID: <20170911141302.GB24527@aishdas.org> Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav in a different direction. I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the "q" in "Amaleiq".) : I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported : wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher : Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where : we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history. : Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint : in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious : revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of : anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where : the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in : order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal : add a story that isn't needed. : Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or : pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some : of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising, : but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read : historically, I wonder. I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.) Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened" the criteria for such categorization? If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories that defy how the world works. (And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who accept miracles.) In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures. Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid. IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh and av deis din derelict in his duty? The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because they're only ahistoric. I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from within the midrashic-story system. So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..." While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise" far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:54:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty. Rabbi Akiva lived at the > time of the Bar Kochva revolt. R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later. The > vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the > destruction of Bayit Sheni. While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 17:20:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, > Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was > Nasi in Yavneh)" And how many of those feature in any machlokos? Hillel & Shammai had only three, beside the long-running one on smicha. > These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel & Shammai do. Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to dispute? > Hillel and Shammai were certainly > well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their > students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo ra'u". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 18:19:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:19:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 07:02:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? Message-ID: <1505224922640.65779@stevens.edu> Please see the video at http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb produced by the Harabonim of Queens YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 20:16:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:16:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? In-Reply-To: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe > the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were > gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". > Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of > machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the > teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the > lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on! As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one). Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF. * HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim, 1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130 concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora. (All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 08:49:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? Message-ID: <1505317742192.42683@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40) writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until thirteen and a half minutes after sunset. The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 11:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (hankman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:11:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Message-ID: R. Zvi Lampel wrote: ?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help?? CM responds: Yup, I imagine that would be the concordance in his head! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 06:28:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= Message-ID: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 08:54:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:54:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170914155423.GD26813@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av : even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but... Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 09:44:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach In-Reply-To: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> References: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170914164428.GA4289@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is : applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, : might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?.. I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981) count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei. So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod. While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such "tolados". : Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own : law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven? I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of authority is granted. There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of a Noachide court under dinim: The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society. This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10) and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid (Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim 10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim" includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law needs to look like. But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the other 6. This is shitas haRambam (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land. See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 11:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> Message-ID: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min : ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger : (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin was a meat thing in particular. But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the brain. (* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're the consensus, by sheer number.) If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration. It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort to obtain the treif milk. R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:00:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> References: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4636649d-ed8e-bc04-6e80-c299a962507c@sero.name> On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash > et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case > to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. > Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held > like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" > understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, > not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the > brain. You have the PC and CS reversed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1505420943267.43919@stevens.edu> Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170914201537.GB11862@aishdas.org> First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to R Akiva Miller's second post first. On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote: : As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that : takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real : halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the : lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, : but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that : does not apply to Chanukah. I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT) is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function of neis Shabbos. IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation" as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her feel less that she is shouldering the list alone. Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote: : Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. : The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was : "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a : level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why : this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, : because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs : of the home." Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..." But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah kavsah neiro shel olam connection.) The MB too... So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU cites, "only" the nesei keilim. : In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting : the lights is part of that! Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where women can consistently be homemakers..." The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way. BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't know what to make of that. Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular social state? This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book "Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law" https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing, and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes. One paragraph: Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways. The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point: according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations in a range of mitzvot! Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't know): Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal family unit. RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the thesis: Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical, and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single sex. He did not do so. ... Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family, we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids. So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed social structure. RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers, among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular kinds of social structure over others. ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with a husband and wife at the core. ... Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for, community units that comprise family units which comprise individual units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis. A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is so much to say about it. Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield: Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are -- and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 14:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170914210406.GB10180@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote: : There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): : 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the : Tannaim... According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im. According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion) it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over a dechuyah rule). So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and both talmuds. : 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and : Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? To sum up: 1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah. : Why did they let Machlokes fester? ... 2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted, or cannot be taken at face value. a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from the lishkas hagazis. Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post: b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should. And I suggested: c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that distinguishes between them. And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote: : > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won : > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority : > and passed their 18 gezeros. : That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed : group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It : sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either mean - number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5) - number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT sham) So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that would explain why they too got counted. But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 09:28:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:28:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> >From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss : Question: If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition. Answer: He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like an average person, and certainly not Maaser. If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur cholim, miqvah, shuls... I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of the rest of the community. Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. (I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to help, I would appreciate it.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 11:15:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? --------------------- From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 12:22:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170915192219.GD11421@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - : cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools (and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave them some guidelines for defining what that is. But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the complexity of their definition. And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/ poseiq would tell you to compute your share? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 17 07:08:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is the Customer Always Right? Message-ID: <95.E3.03036.1028EB95@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 15:19:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:19:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha > B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to > have a minyan? I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, as compared to wwithout a minyan. I thought that we say it Motzaei Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few days are left and we fear running out of time. Both reasons are even more relevant on Motzaei Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 21:39:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a25b83f-173e-6448-5511-011515a4e304@sero.name> On 18/09/17 18:19, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, > as compared to wwithout a minyan. Without a minyan one can't say the kaddish. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 01:56:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tuitiion Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: RMB wrote: > Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: > Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, > is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW > described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the > differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other > urgent causes? > I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one > may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if > promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are > currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: It is meritorious to support Torah scholars, and you may dedicate a portion of your [maaser kesafim] funds even to support one's own son studying Torah. You may likewise use a portion of these funds to pay for the your adult children's yeshiva gedola, midrasha and college tuition, but you should not draw on these funds for paying tuition while in elementary or high school. [1] However, someone lives a modest lifestyle and still cannot otherwise make ends meet, may draw on these funds even to pay for a portion of his minor children's Jewish day school tuition. [2] Someone who benefits from a scholarship at an institution of Jewish education should prioritize that institution when giving charity, over other institutions. [3] 1: Chatam Sofer YD 249 2: Igrot Moshe YD2 ?113, but Aruch haShulchan YD 249:7 disagrees 3: Oral ruling by Rav Hershel Schachter It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka. I once sent my kids to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we are discussing, since it is a poor community). -- Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 11:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral Message-ID: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> An Aish article notes: >The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >within them. There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first appear in Jewish thought?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 13:33:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom Message-ID: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> The most commonly cited reason that we say "oseh hashalom" rather than "oseh shalom" in kaddish during the 10 days, is that the gematria of hashalom is equivalent to the gematria of Safriel, the malach that "writes" us into the Book. (I just recently read somewhere else: "Hagahos Mordechai [Miseches Rosh Hashanah 720 he states as follows: Safiriel is the Gematria of Oseh and Oseh is the Gematria of Hashalom. Alternatively this hints to the kindness of Hashem that swerves the judgment to merit in a case that the sins and merits are equal, and the verse states "Maaseh Hatzedaka Shalom"." (I don't understand this second reason: the "sholom" in that last phrase doesn't have a "hey") I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their other reasons I am missing?) KvCT! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their > other reasons I am missing?) Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter counts. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:40:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <6d0c6039-0428-0174-88ec-0724ad47e1a5@sero.name> On 19/09/17 14:48, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >> forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >> Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >> imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >> within them. I assume this is in the context of a discussion of the way people in ancient times used to see time as cyclical rather than as progressing, as we moderns see it. > I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. > > Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first > appear in Jewish thought?) The idea that specific days have fixed properties that repeat every time they come around is found everywhere in Chazal. They took it completely for granted, and of course it fits into the cyclical way the ancients saw all of time. But it's clear from the Torah that they *didn't* see time as cyclical. So the author of this article uses the spiral to explain how they did see it. But it's impossible to discuss this entire subject without the insight that there are different ways to see time, and without the two models -- cyclical and progressive -- to contrast, and to propose syntheses as this author does. Chazal did not have the historical perspective to be aware of this whole dichotomy. I suspect they were unaware that the nochrim of their era didn't see time as they did, and that the nochrim were just as unaware that Jews didn't see time as *they* did. Only looking back from 2000 years later is this difference apparent, and we can discuss how the Torah's progressive view of history can be reconciled with dates repeating themselves, by using the spiral analogy. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 08:45:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170925154550.GC23052@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important : >as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, : >are their other reasons I am missing?) : Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the : first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter : counts. At least both the Chassidei Ashkenaz and the Tur held it was. There is no evidence of this line of thought any closer to the actual start of Nusach Ashkenaz. And a number of the Tur's word counts are dependent on flavor of Nusach Ashkenaz. Could well be that the significance is itself part of a bigger machloqes. They could also be taken as post-facto kavvanos, a way keep in mind a pasuq that colors what we mean by the baqashah, rather than causitive. It is interesting to me that the violation of word count gematrios in Nusach Ashkenaz is largely among Chassidim, who we culturally associate as the community most likely to deal in such remez. Except perhaps for Chida and Ben Ish Hai influenced Sepharadim, but they didn't have a nusach that made such claims to ask why they would choose to leave it. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 05:38:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:38:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? Message-ID: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, and what HKB"H wants from us: Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot switch its use). GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 09:30:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 25/09/17 08:38, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, > and what HKB?H wants from us: > Rama Y?D 249:13 (my free translation) ? In any event one shouldn?t > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won?t he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz ? so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 10:19:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:19:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: We change "min kol" to "mikol" to make up for the addition of the extra "l'eila".? So that the word count stays the same.? So yes, we see this kind of thing everywhere, including kaddish. Lisa On 9/19/2017 11:33 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria.? Do we see that elsewhere?? (Or, are > their other reasons I am missing?) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- I leave it to the readers to project if people put a name on as a form of bragging (separate question - is it intent or what observer's perceive that counts?) It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the item is not in danger of being switched in use? GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:29:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170925182902.GA16613@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:37PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An Aish article notes: :> The Jewish model of time is a spiral... : There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it : was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. : The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time : (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. : I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. There is no source, but it's a pretty compelling conclusion given Chazal's description of mo'eid, or chayav kol adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo repeating yetzi'as Mitzrayim annually OT1H, and yet OTOH speaking of history as inexorably running from Adam to the messianic era (and beyond). We might be the first generation consciously aware enough of the issue to think about our use of both language that implies circular time and that of linear time to want to make a synthesis "helical time". (True YU alumni would insist there is no helical time. Meaning comes from the tension of the dialectic; there is no syntheis. ) I don't question the value of lomdus, even though it is utilizing patterns in halakhah or halachic dialectic that weren't made explicit. Yes, that creates a change of error, but when the explanation is strong enough, do we reject the whole concept because the Rambam never spoke about gavra vs cheftza on topics other than oaths? Think how much hashkafah, or specifically Qabbalah, is drawn from just this kind of finding a theory to explain existing statements. This helical time is typical. So, is it a modern chiddush? That isn't a boolean question... to the extent you find this intepretation muchrach, it's inherent in what came bafore. And the the extent you don't, v.v. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:58:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>> Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't :>> glorify oneself with the charity he gives... :> Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their :> donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item :> donated... ... : It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the : item is not in danger of being switched in use? I am personally bothered when there is so much text on the paroches or cloth on the bimah (term?) that it detracts from the aesthetics. I am also bothered when more space is spent naming the donors than naming and perhaps lauding the person in whose memory the donation was given. That said... I think the consensus is that things have fallen to the point that we have two offsetting values that outweigh this ill: 1- When the choice is between collecting multiples more money with giving out honors vs operating on a shoestring and having to cut corners by only taking more purely motivated donations, the extra tzedaqah given is a mitzvah that outweights the alternative. 2- Even someone who has pure motives and wants to give quietly is living in a society that will respond positively if his donation is made public and influences the community. Peer pressure isn't just for teenagers. I think it's parallel to choosing chalitzah as a first choice. It's clear from the pasuq and the content of the ritual that chalitzah is something that in the ideal no one should be encouraged to choose. But as Abba Shaul noted, we don't live in that ideal world, and what was second-rate has become (centuries later) mandatory practice. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 12:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170925190253.GE16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, : as compared to without a minyan... We make a point of demonstrating communal unity in the middle. "Shalom Aleikhem!" Not speaking halachically, as you aren't obligated to greet 9 men, or even really greet anyone. But still... Aside from Zev's example of getting one more qaddish, which is a nice but incidental advantage, it seems to me that QL itself leans toward being a tzibur thing. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:34:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Ben On 9/19/2017 12:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I thought that we say it Motzaei > Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few > days are left and we fear running out of time. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:09:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:09:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <761520c3-faea-cd38-8ba8-ee24f675b3b7@sero.name> On 25/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > cloth on the bimah (term?) mappah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 03:39:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <046338f8-991f-2216-c55d-6002821d57a1@sero.name> On 26/09/17 01:34, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of > Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a > shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Not everyone does that, in fact some don't even say it on Shabbat, and wait until Shavuot. So zrizin doesn't necessarily override avelut. Also many don't do kidush levana until after 7 days from the molad, by which time we're into the deeper avelut. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 06:45:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170926134541.GB23180@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:34:30AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the : 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? ... I am confused. Isn't the implication simply that all else being equal, do it earlier because zerizin, but aveilus is sufficient for not considering all else equal? Why does zerizus being applicable mean that it is necessarily the most urgent halachic principle coming into play? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 11:54:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Over on Areivim, we were yet again discussing the cRc's position that one should not buy coffee from a full Starbucks store that sells food. Here's my take, cut-n-pasted from what I posted there. ... There is a lot of ham and bacon at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=hot-breakfast and poultry at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=sandwiches-panini-and-wraps The cRc's statement refers to these in particular . It also questions your assumption of the ubiquitous use of soap: Chicago Rabbinical Council Guide to Starbucks Beverages May 2013 / June 2015 ... As said, Starbucks shops serve many kosher and non-kosher items, with the most serious non-kosher item being hot meat sandwiches. The standard daily clean-up at Starbucks includes a hot wash of all utensils and some parts of that washing are done without soap. This clean up process significantly challenges the kosher status of the otherwise kosher products and each product must be judged by a competent halachic authority. The cRc has made available their detailed review and analysis of this topic in the spring 2011 edition of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and that article can be found below. Click here to read this article. The good news is that there are many Starbucks locations that do not serve hot meat sandwiches. These are generally the Starbucks kiosks which can be defined as a Starbucks location, usually found in a mall, retail store, a bus or train station or airport, that does not sell hot sandwiches. The cRc is comfortable recommending any drink made from kosher ingredients (even though some others use ingredients that may not be kosher). This list is accurate at this time for stores in the United States based on two and a half years of extensive research and consultation with the cRc's Av Beth Din, Rav Schwartz, shlit"a.... Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. And that is consistent with the lenient majority. We're trying to understand the cRc's ruling. There is no derabbanan here[, to justify another poster's invocation of safeiq derabbanan]. They're saying that the odds of your cup being washed without soap with a plate that held hot bacon or tereifah chicken is high enough that one needs to avoid taking that risk. But that's real nosein ta'am of an issur de'oraisa. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:56pm +0300 someone wrote to Areivim, on a discussion of the cRc's ruling against : I don't drink coffee at all, so I'm not a frequent Starbucks customer, but : I suspect that a sandwich like : https://www.starbucks.com/menu/food/sandwiches-panini-and-wraps/chicken-blt-salad-sandwich?foodZone=9999 : is probably at least 1/60th chicken or bacon. The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 13:17:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women Message-ID: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the topic of leadership/ordination for women. (I am indebted to some of those here who helped sharpen arguments :-) ). I think I have adequately illustrated that their position is based on wrong/unproven facts, poor logic, fuzzy definitions, strained arguments, and inconsistent application of the rules. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need to have a comprehensive and systematic approach to gender and public/leadership. I am happy to respond to questions, critiques and criticisms. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/sneak-peek-an-analysis-of-the-ban-on-women-rabbis/ Noam Stadlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 12:38:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926193827.GA27624@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:56:59AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: :> I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one :> may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if :> promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are :> currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. : From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: ... : It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as : tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his : minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But : what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka.... Agreed, but I don't see how it's obvious. Say your handyman is a pious guy, and rather than not doing business with people who can't afford his full rate, he charges them less for labor. Also, Rn Handyman isn't so willing to take the full hit on total income. Since this is a nice guy, we can assume that if more of the town were wealthier, his usual rate for someone who can beqoshi stretch the budget would be lower. Is the difference in salary tzedaqah? Does it make a difference if Reb Handyman actuall did this accounting and maybe even announced the resulting differential? Or is a baal melakhah's pay rate money owed, and such cheshbonos should be irrelevent. This imaginary scenario was designed to be both parallel and to my mind a somewhat wild line of reasoning. 1- Once you say that any tuition paid beyond the cost for your child is indeed tzedaqah, one needs a pesaq about how to apportion group costs to each individual student. The cost of the class divided by students, then the cost of school administation divided by the student body? Or maybe if a teacher is hired as soon as a class would otherwise grow beyond 25 students, I should be looking at the incremental cost of my child after the need to start the additional class was caused by someone else? And then -- could it depend on if I registered late, or before the number of classes was determined? And don't get me started on who is paying for resource room staff, where there are parallels to the above AND the reality that different kids would be using different amount of the service. So that my kid's 1 hour per week may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to get a math specialist, whereas another student's 5 hours of readin help is with a teacher they needed otherwise. Who pays what? 2- Once you make it tzedaqah, rather than considering tuition as debt, all could be fine-and-well halachically. And so it can come out of maaser kesafim. (All the more so because we aren't even sure maaser kesafim is a din.) And the schools like this, because it frees up maaser money for people who would otherwise need scholarship. But the line you're replying to was arguing that there is a downside for the school as well. As the teshuvah we started from notes -- debt is a higher priority than tzedaqah. You don't pay maaser out of money owed. And so, the school is marketing a din that may mean /less/ money for them than if the halakhah were that the full tuition should be treated as a debt. position for a sch chakhamim don't have to pay city defenses; maybe a good kid who doesn't see the principal should be considered : to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition : may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we : are discussing, since it is a poor community). GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 21:47:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> References: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4d52778a-5fe9-0dae-592c-ff6316a77877@sero.name> On 26/09/17 14:54, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health > department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough > regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. They wash in soapy water first, and then in clear water. The cRc's position is that soapy water, which is hotter than yad soledes bo but cooler than kashering temp, prevents the transmission of treife taam from one keli to another when they are washed together, but it does *not* render the treife keli permanently pagum. The treife keli comes out just as treif as it was, so when it's then put into *clean* hot water together with the kosher keli the treife taam transfers. > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical substance at all, so it's not surprising that even if it permeates the keli's entire structure, which we assume it does, it doesn't add to its mass. This is also why the bracha on coffee is shehakol, not ha'etz, because there is no substance of the coffee bean in the final product; only taam, smell, and colour are transferred in the brewing, all of which are assumed to have zero mass. Which makes the existence of instant coffee a conundrum, and casts doubt on the practise of saying shehakol also on coffee made from instant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Tabory via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom Message-ID: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. Yosef Tabory From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 08:26:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170927152646.GD1177@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote: : Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of : the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel : minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)... Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah. I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian "Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon, they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation -- 10 yemei teshuvah. To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh. : Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, : the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not : wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought : that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh : Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh) had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom" in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify abandoning it. ----- While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef, let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in "Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi yontef nusach for the joke to work. Why are so many Jews overweight? Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we sing: Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein! Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8), apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates! GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:30:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:30:33 +0000 Subject: “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux Message-ID: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> >From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")? A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart" (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13). IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me) GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:29:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:29:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds Message-ID: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense that A gets more credit(schar) than B? My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish, etc.) Thoughts? GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 19:34:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom Message-ID: . Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz. I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. Specifically: Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912 Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928 Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940 (Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.) Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949 Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950 Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960 The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960 Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982 There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this machlokes. However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different, and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America (who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 18:20:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical > substance at all, ... I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical substance? I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* be removed by cleaning. Gmar chasima tova to all, Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:21:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? Message-ID: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Please see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v I personally have always used money for Kapporas was. This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly mistreated before they are used for Kapporas. IIRC a few years ago it was discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water or food and died. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:31:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had to be discarded. After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost everywhere with the kapporos chickens. Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim: it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here. I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko. But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:48:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical >> substance at all, ... > > I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence > that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical > substance? I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a modern person to wrap ones head around. > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must > be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* > be removed by cleaning. If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing left to kasher! All you've done is clean the surface. There was never a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on the surface. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:54:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7096234e-1e3d-84c3-bb8b-dcfebecbb79f@starways.net> On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 10:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170928170022.GC32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence :> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical :> substance? : I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for : a modern person to wrap ones head around. I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT) about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion: : On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got :> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is :> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean :> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the :> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... : If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get : it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I : always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance : absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel : possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we understand an experience intellectually. This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs, etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience. My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer, than on the physics of the objects being utilized. Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance (like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance" (as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the past agreed with. If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked: > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the whole pot is indeed tainted. I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 12:03:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v ... : This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly : mistreated before they are used for Kapporas... That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens, not the minhag. This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag. The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag. In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it? Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori. (It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.) And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and "ve'ein leshanos". Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa") or not been doing kapparos at all. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 11:52:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588ee3662a16491c9404fcc82bfe2e8a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom. Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 28 22:03:26 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them > a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate object such as money. You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. > Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 29 13:15:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the : >Maharil)... : : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather from his own money. (Shelah) : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a meilitz yosher before going into din. I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the pidyon of the person. :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree.... Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag vasiqin"? GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht : Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a : life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it : with an inanimate object such as money. : : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but : the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after : kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or : else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The : Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, : since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. : : : >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- : >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were : doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand : it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. : : -- : Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, : zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all : _______________________________________________ : Avodah mailing list : Avodah at lists.aishdas.org : http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org : GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From zev at sero.name Fri Sep 29 13:33:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > : >Maharil)... > : > : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it > : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... > > Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather > from his own money. (Shelah) As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... > > Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is > inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer > to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a > meilitz yosher before going into din. Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka. Plus, kaporos is not done right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend doing it as much as a few days earlier). > I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have > primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation? > I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the > pidyon of the person. The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. > :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. > > : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means > : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its > : pedigree.... > > Source? It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". > He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously > suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves > pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin > to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition > fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag > vasiqin"? The same thing. Although don't know who gave this heter someone must have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we don't understand it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:05:15 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog Message-ID: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one? From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:14:07 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to another book which I don't own). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Sep 30 13:35:00 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: If I can mix actuality with the idea below: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. Ben On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the > Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after > kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or > else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer > Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since > it's less embarrassing to the recipient. From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:22:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c1fa29c-aa4b-122a-0dce-bfe50d5e5e32@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 > minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of > Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). > > What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to > another book which I don't own). Shulchan aruch OC 649. See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like the Rambam. Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being covered in more red berries than leaves, etc. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 19:18:58 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov Message-ID: . A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group: > The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when > Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is > known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is > a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one > is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in > for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving > lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed > and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good > both physically and spiritually! When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos. My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov? I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos. Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years, I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic - allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running, Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote "Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".) So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Looking forward to your responses. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sat Sep 30 18:03:12 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171001010312.GA17048@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". : > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will : > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give : > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather : > from his own money. (Shelah) : : As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do : kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. : Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos : is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give : tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. : >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is : >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer : >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a : >meilitz yosher before going into din. : : Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama : and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all : of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) As you yourself write, epmashsis added: : The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, : instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can : buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. : >: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : >: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : >: pedigree.... : > : >Source? : : It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a : plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find "vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim. Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless. The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the chain was already broken for a couple of generations. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 21:05:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3040f2fc-ea44-2eaf-3016-6c25f3b8b9c6@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and > sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the > mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only > applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar one may buy the cheaper one. The second opinion is that even if both are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a third more for the better one. This rule is not just for esrog, it's in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b). > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you can)? If > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a > hiddur to buy one? It means neither one. You left out a word. The Mechaber's language is "*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish". One should buy the better one, *if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior one. If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it. But there's certainly no restriction if you want to. The gemara says "Up to a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:25:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If I can mix actuality with the idea below: > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 > > What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with > tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or > honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that > affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in > Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck. There's nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-) Especially on Erev Yom Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah. The scandal is that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah. If they shechted them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared. [Email #2] On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". >:> And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will >:> be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give >:> maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather >:> from his own money. (Shelah) >: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do >: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. >: Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos >: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give >: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person > to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. We clearly have switched topics. There is no other way to read the Rama. The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka. The Rama says that we should not change this minhag. Then he says how it should be done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white. *Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the person. and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam". It's a pidyon just like pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the poor, we buy it back from tzedaka. >:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is >:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer >:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a >:> meilitz yosher before going into din. >: Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama >: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all >: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... > The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor > person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly. The minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them money. On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable. See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned earlier. So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery. See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to the poor. (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.) > (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about > a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes > no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) Where did you get this idea? There's nothing about it in the source we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen. The pasuk from Iyov is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" that we will shecht instead of this "gever". It has nothing to do with doing a mitzvah. Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov. > As you yourself write, epmashsis added: >: The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, >: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can >: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this. Giving it to the poor is a separate minhag. BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries or something, but you think it's good enough for them. This isn't a logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money prevents it. On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy day). >:>: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means >:>: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its >:>: pedigree.... This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an old minhag". But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised what it was. "Vosik" does not mean old. You're confusing it with "`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; strong; distinguished". "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a distinguished scholar". "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee distinguished among the nations". "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the conscientiously pious men of former days." So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn because they can't sleep anyway:-) [Email #3] PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really. https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7 defines it in leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced". So even when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time itself but to the experience gained over that time. The etymology is not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy". It does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, but of experience. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 1 19:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" Message-ID: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> 1) Balaam advocates the destruction of an entire people. He is a hired gun (or mouth) who has exploited his prophetic gift and is willing to help implement a genocide for the right price. This type of individual has separated himself from all people, hence, this position of his is coded in his very name Balaam, "B'li Am," "without a people." 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is called an "aton.? Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of the physical. But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey, therefore his donkey speaks to him -- the inference being that Balaam has descended to an animalistic level, and that is the symbolism of the donkey talking to him. I see it as "chamor" in the sense of "heavy" referring to Abraham, since he carries so much more weight than Balaam. On the other hand, Balaam's donkey is called ?aton,? very similar to the word "etnan" which means a "harlot's pay? ? quitet fascinating since Balaam prostituted himself with the intention of fulfilling Balak's request. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.? Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 2 08:25:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: RMB wrote: > IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than > Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ > that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what > the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions > in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) > believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in > 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. Indeed, I recall, upon dealing with those various shittos while in RIETS, particularly as covered by Rav Charlop in a shiur of his, that Satmar and Rav Kook are a lot closer to each other than to Agudah & Rav Soloveitchik. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 09:14:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:14:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?What_is_the_correct_way_to_pronounce_Hashem?= =?cp1255?q?=92s_name_in_Shmoneh_Esrei_and_other_brachos=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170703161444.GC18193@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Halacha Yomis ... : A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D ... "We have : a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, : that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY : -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf : Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." First, we know from seifer Shoferim that different shevatim had different accents, such that Shevet Ephraim (like Litvaks of a much later date) pronounced as right-dotted shin the same as a sin or samekh. So how can we talk about a single accent even at Har Sinai? I therefore assume RSZE Hy"d was saying that you need to use your mesorah's patach-cholam-qamatz, as he spells out in the rephrasing. And that these vowels are what's misinai. Which is also problematic, as the division of various possible vowel alophones into specific phonemes probably didn't happen until Teverya. This next paragraph may make your eyes glaze over. It justifies the previous one, but feel free to skip it if it bores you and move on to the next point: Which explains why Bavel's nequdos don't line up one-to-one with the ones we use today -- one symbol for segol and patach and one symbol for qamatz qatan and cholam with a different one for. And the prior Israeli system fits Sepharadi pronounciation, fewer symbols showing less differentiation, but it could simply be less precise. The way we still have one symbol for qamatz qatan and qamatz gadol, or sheva na and sheva nach. (Unless you are using a "simanim" or other non-standard printing. Unicode actually supports this differentiation, if you find a font and a text file that distinguishes.) One symbol does not mean one phoneme. But it hints at how the locals viewer the vowels. Like Rashi, who echoes the Babylonian single segol-patach system when he refers to a segol as a patach qatan. (If you are still reading this paragraph, you'd probably enjoy our mesorah email list. Ask me to sign you up!) R Rallis Weisenthal (CC-ed), in his siddur in memory of Qh"Q Bad Homburg pg LXV (on opensiddur.org), lists traditional Ashkneazi cholam sounds, claiming that they're all dipthongs. ("Claiming", because I am not sure he's right on one of them): Poland, Austria-Hungary komatz chirik O^i [t]oy Lithuania, Russia segol chirik Ae^i [p]ay Northern Germany, Holland patach shuruk A^u [h]ow Southern Germany, Switzerland, France, Latvia, England, North America komatz shuruk O^u [g]o I think the Lithuanian cholam was originally more like /oe/ a sound halfway between /o/ and a tzeirei. (And the /e/ of the tzeirei isn't quite the same as a segol.) What he is describing reflects later Polish influence, a compromise position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio could help here. And I think the British cholam actually is rounder than a qamatz, like a long /O/ in English. And like a long /O/, there is a tendency to add a rounding /w/ (eg "blow"), but it's not always there. Maybe a dipthong of qamatz qatan and a /w/, which is shitas haGra. Not entirely different than what RRW writes, but also not quite as implied from his description. Anyway, he has a continuing discussion by R' Y Kramer againt using a /y/ or /i/ sound to round a cholam. Go to the above link. It's too long and two bi-lingual for me to cut-n-paste here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 10:03:51PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : 2) Both Abraham and Balaam arise early and mount their donkeys. : However, Abraham's donkey is referred to as "chamor," while Balaam's is : called an "aton." : Why the difference? Rabbi Ari Kahn points out that "chamor" (physical) : suggests that Abraham transcends and harnesses the donkey - a symbol of : the physical. : But Balaam is seen no better than his donkey... Thus the root "aleph-tav", meaning together with (eg "ito bateivah"). The Gra makes this point about riding a chamor being mastery of one's chomer vs being together with one's ason. I bet RAK cites him. He lurks here, but I took the liberty of CC-ing RAK so as to get his attention. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 3 11:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Balak "Who's the Real Jackass" In-Reply-To: <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> References: <0DAE2A95-B9B3-4E70-9287-570870B046AB@cox.net> <20170703152753.GB18193@aishdas.org> <20170703185003.GD18193@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The Maharal -- preceded the Gra on this point. Here is a paragraph from the new edition of Explorations (anticipated 20th anniversary edition) The denouement of history is in our hands. The Mashiach will be revealed in clouds of glory if we are worthy; if we are unworthy, our redemption will be of a far less exalted nature. If we are deserving, the clouds will be revealed sooner; if not, the redemption will take longer, and the process will be slow and plodding -- but the redemption will surely come. And just as the clouds are an image that is laden with meaning, representing man's ability to recognize and connect to the metaphysical plane, so, too, the image of the Messiah as a poor man riding on his donkey is no mere literary device: According to mystical sources, this metaphor holds the key to the redemption itself: The Zohar[1] explains that the role of Mashiach is to ride on the chamor, to subdue the physical.[2] ________________________________ [1] Zohar Bemidbar 207a ???? ??? ? ?? ??/? ????? ?????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?????"?. ?????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??????????, (????? ??) ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????"? ?????????. ?????? ???? ??????, ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? Those of the right are all merged in one called "donkey," and that is the donkey of which it is written, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" [Devarim 22:10]. That is also the donkey which the King Mashiach shall control. (Zohar, Bemidbar 207a) [2] See comments of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael chapter 40. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? - ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ?"? ???????? ???"? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????...??"? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????. Can I repeat that second line on list? As for the first line... In general, email lists are failing. And yet, I don't want to move Avodah to a medium that encourages quick and short answers. If Avodah can't remain a place for in-depth discussion, I'll let it fade away. Mail-Jewish, the grand-daddy in the field, is coming out with a digest every two weeks or so. Although it's healthier than Avodah in terms of breadth of contributor pool. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 07:54:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it Message-ID: Recently, someone quoted a friend as saying something about how doing something for the wrong reason could constitute making the Mishna Burah into an Avodah Zara. Or something like that, I don't remember exactly, and I spent almost an hour trying to find the post, so that's why I can't quote it. Anyway, that person was wondering where the idea came from, and I found the following in the current issue of Jewish Action, also available online at https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ > Love of Torah does not always translate into love of > people ? or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk > caustically noted that increased religious observance is not > always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather > sometimes it is for the sake of ?worshipping the Shulchan Aruch.? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 11:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad Message-ID: Mishnah Megillah 4:9 teaches us: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad just like he blesses for the good." That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are talking about two different situations: If one has actually experienced something, then he must bless God for the good *OR* for the bad, whichever applies to the experience. There is no need to be inclusive, to mention that He is responsible for both. But when one speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when he must mention both the good and the bad. Or perhaps he can speak in generalities, but he must be careful not to suggest that God does *only* good things, to the exclusion of painful things: "One who says 'Your Name will be remembered for the good [that You do]' ... he is silenced." So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that He *does* good. The things He does is described mostly in terms of the life He gives us, and the miracles that He does. (It is true that at one point it we thank Him for "tovosecha" - Your good things - but that is secondary, coming after "niflaosecha".) But then we turned to the fourth bracha of Birkas Hamazon, usually referred to as "Hatov v'haMaytiv" - "the One who is good, and does good" - from the central words. And then it continues: "Hu haytiv, hu maytiv, hu yaytiv lanu" - "He has done good, He does do good, and He will do good to us." And it closes with: "He will never deprive us of anything good." Where is the bad? In what way is this bracha not a violation of this mishna in Megilla? I concede that we've left out the Mishna's word "yizacher", but I don't think that is relevant. It appears to go directly against what the Gemara Megilla wrote, "It implies that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad." Is there any way to reconcile this gemara with this bracha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 4 13:44:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:44:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/07/17 14:54, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But when one > speaks in the abstract, about what God does in general, that is when > he must mention both the good and the bad. No. There is no need to mention all the things He does. Nor is there any need, when thanking Him for the good things He does, to include also the other things He does. What one may not do is declare that He is *to be thanked for* the good things He does, which implies He is *not* to be thanked for the other things he does. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:15:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered Message-ID: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 05:17:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:17:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 6 08:00:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170706150007.GD11698@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:17:31PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? : If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at : all minyanim? By whom? In an alternate reality, where I went into kelei qodesh instead of Wall Street programming jobs, there is (would have been?) a movement by now called Mevaqshei Tov veYosher, a/k/a Other-Focused Orthodoxy (OFO). The OFO flagship shul, Yishrei Leiv, hosts AishDas programming, of course, and at this point in alternate time, has a number of ve'adei mussar, shiurim in machashavah and workshops in tefillah. And, in line with OFO ideology, the rule for who can correct the baal qeri'ah is simple. The only people who can do so are (would be): 1- the gabbaim, 2- the rav, and 3- next week's baal qeri'ah . (Everyone else should go to the gabbaim quietly. Even at the expense of an occasional repeated pasuq. But also gabbaim would need to know diqduq and be able to field the simpler questions of which mistakes actually require correction.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 7 15:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 18:51:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION Message-ID: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> I sent an email to AVODAH where I mistakenly wrote that Rav Rivkas from Rabbeinu HaGra's family did not write Be'er Hagolah seeking to correct their misspelling. I wrote Bay.ur Hagolah. NEITHER is correct. He wrote B' er HaGolah. there is a shva under the Bais. I ws mistakenly thinking of ppl mistakenly saying Biur HaGra instead of Bay.ur Hagra. My mistake but as least I was thinking of the Gra. :) Reb Joel -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:51:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] the desire to be remembered Message-ID: <000001d2f823$a6448d60$f2cda820$@actcom.net.il> I would call this the need for recognition or the desire for kavod. I think it is a yetzer akin to the need for food or the desire for sex, the yetzer hara that is 'tov la'adam' as Bereshit Rabba puts it. Without the appetite for food, we would probably die of malnutrition; without the desire for sexual pleasure we would probably not want to procreate, and without the desire for kavod/recognition, we would probably be sociopaths. Our need for recognition (desire to be remembered, if you prefer) enables everything from toilet training to basic manners to our desire to contribute positively to society. If we did not need the approval of our parents and our peers, we would never get far enough along the path of social interaction to learn the rewarding nature of altruism and doing good for the sake of doing good. The process of socialization makes us human. Without our need for kavod/approval/recognition, it is hard to see how we could ever be educated. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 14:24:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:24:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India Message-ID: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties between Israel and India? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 8 19:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Treaty with India In-Reply-To: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> References: <352b7c50-4875-c2ec-7ee8-359fea8039da@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 08/07/17 17:24, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Assume for a moment that Hinduism is a full fledged religion of idol > worship. Would there be any halachic issues with a treaty/treaties > between Israel and India? I don't see why. There were treaties between our ancient kings and foreign rulers, pretty much all of whom served AZ. And of course there's the treaty between Yaacov & Lavan, which was explicitly backed by each party's deity/ies. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 08:24:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CORRECTION In-Reply-To: <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> References: <5960106E.6070008@schnurassociates.com> <3986A68C-8BA7-452E-A996-719BF9C6121A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59624AA6.4070406@schnurassociates.com> at least I know that there are some people actually reading what I send out, so TY 2 Rabbi Ralbag, shimon, Capt Dan and I think Mendy for responding. as for the rabbi's comment, I am pleased to see/read that he has a good sense of humor. I also learned how to spell email in Hebrew. My announced CORRECTION reminds me of the incident with Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he had a prober for being Rosh Hayeshiva for KOL TORAH. he was giving his shiur and someone corrected him. He stopped, thought about it and then said 'taeeti" figuring he blew his chance for getting the job. Afterwards they told him he was selected as RY and he supposedly said "but I blew it when I made that mistake." Just the opposite they said. We want someone who is able to admit he made a mistake. and with that story, I end this adventure. :) B'yidedus, Joel > Rav Ralbag > July 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM > ?? JOEL: > ???? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. > ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????-??????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? > ????? !! > ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? - ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? > ??? !!!!??? > ??? ???? ????? ?????-????? ! > ????? ???? ???? ??? ?-?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ??????? ??? ????? > ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? - ?????, ???? ????? ???? > ???? !!! > ??????? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, > ???? ????? On Jul 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, mendy stern wrote: > So you want to be the Rosh Yeshiva? Only if the yeshiva davens nusach HaGra! Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 19:36:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: Does your shul have formal guidelines for correcting baalei kriah? If yes, are they from a prior source? Are they consistently applied at all minyanim? By whom? ---------------- My shul does not, except that the previous (now deceased Rav) was very against it, quoting the Tur about embarrassing the Baal Korei. That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 20:00:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:00:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <04ba01d2f928$bced1db0$36c75910$@gmail.com> R' JR: R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or general society)? ------------------------ Maslow's highest level in his Hierarchy of Needs (in its later permutations) is self-transcendence. I think that's what you're talking about. Here's some further on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcenden ce KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 02:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:45:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> That said, let me add to R' JR's questions: Does your shul have any guidelines for correcting the Korei of the Haftorah? A Rav once pointed out to me that there is no mekor for correcting the one leining the haftorah; in his shul, he did not correct on the Haftorah, even the kind of mistake that he would have corrected during the Krias Hatorah. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ================================ We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 9 09:24:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: ?Pinhas? has turned back Chamati, My wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11) So, Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous, difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamati (my wrath), the two outside letters chet and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters, mem and tav, read meit ? death. The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meit) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai). (Also, if you remove the "W" (for Wilderness) from "wrath" and replace it with "O" (for Obedience to God), the ?orath? can be rearranged to read Torah). Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live. Norman Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 11:58:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:37am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote to Areivim: : In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla : attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. : : My review and analysis of his failed approach to halacha is at : http://www.thelehrhaus.com/culture/2017/7/7/the-not-so-orthodox-embrace-of-the-new-age-movement Although RBR posted to Areivim, I have an Avodah question. To quote: > To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For > example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has > been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to > the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved > as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies > it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, > or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it > globally. And the article discusses things like auras and other New Age ideas that if traced back to their origins one will find AZ. Is it all that different than the gemara's discussion or wearing a fox's tooth, where even a Rationalist like the Rambam (Shabbos 19:13) permits? Darkhei Emori are allowed for refu'ah (AZ 67a). Also Rashi (Chullin 77b "yeish") which according to the Panim Me'iros (1:36) includes any act to the body to be healed, but not "spooky action at a distance" (to quote Dr Einstein out of context). The Ran (Chullin ad loc) based on this Rashi explicitly permits any act we know works to heal, even if the workings are metaphysical. So is the difference only in which metaphysics I personally believe is real, and which is -- again, IMHO -- "woowoo"? And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? Are the laws of tereifos, which say put despite later findings about what an animal can live 12 months with, and what not, typical and precedent to say we go with Chazal's science, law is law, ignore the science? Or is it an exception because tereifos is halakhah leMoshe miSinai? I could see the standard of medical testing being decided by that question... Or... when it comes to which saqanos one is allowed to risk, the standard is normal and accepted. If people tend to climb trees to pick dates, it is mutar to get a job risking a fall from the top of a date-palm. Perhaps medicine too is defined by societal standards. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 12:27:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah, In-Reply-To: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> References: <20170710185812.GB9209@aishdas.org> Message-ID: And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better standards for testing medicine? ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 14:47:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] being remembered In-Reply-To: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7c7182493b734f0b91f1ad1a2c945585@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170710214723.GA29132@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'YBS commented (not so positively) on man's great desire to : be remembered (think Ozymandias). Question - from where does this : desire spring? The Gesher Hachayim, IIUC, says it is from the soul's : knowledge that it is eternal. Any other interpretations (halachic or : general society)? >From a recent blog post of mine, The Interpersonal Aspect of Parah Adumah : To illustrate how the Yerushalmi works, I enjoy taking a rather extreme case -- Berakhos 7:1, 51b: 1. Rav Huna said: Three who eat, this one by himself, this one by himself, and this one by himself, who then mix together should bentch with a mezuman. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three people, so that each ate with an obligation of zimun, even if from different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may make a zimun] when they ate together. 1. Rabbi Yonah [commented] on that which Rab Hunah [was just quoted as saying]: If [the kohein] dipped three hyssop sprigs [into the water made with the ashes of a parah adumah], this one by itself and this one by itself, and mixed them [the hyssops] together, one may sprinkle [the person needing taharah] with them. 2. Rav Chisda said: But this is [only] when they come from three [separate] groups [of three sprigs, so that each sprig was dipped as part of a group of three, even if different groups]. 3. According to the logic of Rabbi Zei'ira and his friends: But [the only may may be used for sprinkling parah adumah water] when they were dipped together. ... But what justifies this comparison? Is it really an expectation that all groups of three ought to be alike, regardless of the topic or the sort of group? In 1973, Ernest Becker wrote a book on philosophy and psychology titled "The Denial of Death". To give a thumbnail of his basic thesis, here are some snippets from [38]The Becker Foundation's "Theories" page: "[T]he basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death." ... The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of mortality. Since human beings have a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we can transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving the symbolic half. Becker describes human pursuit of "immortality projects" (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things. Still, for Becker, the only suitable source of meaning is transcendent, cosmic energy, divine purpose... Becker develops an idea that strikes most of us naturally. A central -- and perhaps THE central -- piece of our drives to contribute to community and to pursue a higher meaning is because these both overcome our own death. What I give my children outlives me in my children, grandchildren and beyond. What I contribute to the Jewish People is eternal because our nation is eternal. What I add to the development of humanity from Adam to the messiah outlives me in impacting the lives of generations to come. Fear of death, the need to embark on "immortality projects" can push us to expand our souls to beyond our mortal bodies. As Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to his substance and body. Above that one is someone who feels that his "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above that one is someone who can include in his "ani" all of his household and family.... And there are more levels in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the world and worlds are his "ani," and he himself is only one small limb in all of creation.... Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and [even] all of creation. The parah adumah is about overcoming death. A person who witnessed or experienced another's death is told to go through a ritual of changing tracks... He not only sees three sprigs from a scrubby bush, but also is thinking about joining together and how he can join with others. How to turn that conversation around from death and its reminder that we are merely physical beings toward death as a drive to go beyond that. We should not forget the most cryptic (choq-like) element of the parah adumah. ... [I]t requires that someone from the community reach out to them, even at their own expense. A true uniting of someone who might be thinking about death and man-as-mammal back into being a person contributing meaning to a larger community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 19:08:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > And yes, Chazal predate double blind experiments and rely on > chazaqah. Do we necessarily switch when we come up with better > standards for testing medicine? R' Joel Rich responded: > The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud > certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and > correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with > sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what > was known to them in their time." > > I'd appreciate specific examples I recently tried to learn a bit about Techum Shabbos. I was very surprised to find an entire siman (#399, with eleven se'ifim), giving details of exactly how the techum is to be measured. For example, the first se'if specifies that we must use a linen rope exactly 50 amos long. I was very surprised that the halacha would write such things, rather than simply presuming that we'd be smart enough to use whatever procedures are generally accepted as accurate. This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do it. The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective one, and tradition might rule. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 10 21:51:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> R' JR: We were taught to say the Haftorah ourselves (unless it is being read from a klaf). What is the practice in other places? I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an educational thing. -------------------------------- I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 04:56:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fb6f6b1-b8cd-4075-09ea-8f770a1b66bd@zahav.net.il> If the person is reading from a full Bible, I will just listen. If I am not sure what book he's reading from, I'll read it to myself. IIRC the Mishna Bruria takes it as a given that the reason most shuls don't read from the klaf is because of the cost. Given today's incomes and fancy shuls, that shouldn't be a factor. And yet, it is the rare beit knesset where they read from a klaf. Ben On 7/11/2017 6:51 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? > > KT, > MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 15:50:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> References: <04b501d2f925$4aafb120$e00f1360$@gmail.com> <8e93836a5570490795c2961843cf7bf3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <050f01d2fa01$50274d70$f075e850$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170711225048.GA29349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I believe - and I may be wrong on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be : corrected!) - that in most chassidish shuls, everyone reads the haftorah to : themselves. In most litvishe shuls only the baal korei reads. And Nusach : Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go 50/50. : : Does that mesh with everyone else's experience? I will confirm. ... WRT shuls that aren't leining from kelaf. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 17:09:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah Message-ID: Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." I'd appreciate specific examples -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 11 18:31:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170712013159.GA6359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This question is ask by both the Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, : who observe that there is nothing better for this purpose than a : surveyor's chain made of barzel (whatever barzel is... ;-) However, : they answer, Chazal learned from Navi that *this* is proper way to do : it. Say I were to use a shorter rope. Well, then my measurments would include more dips and bumps. Whereas the 50 ammah rope might cut a direct path, a shorter rope would have two segments, in different angles. The measure would be longer than if you just cut the tangent. (And in fact, since most landscape is fractal, or nearly fractal until you get cown to molecules, if your "ruler" were smaller than a grain of sand, you could probably measure 50 amos along the wrinkles of the surface within an arm's reach of where you started.) So, the length of the rope will actually change the final measure. The navi implies that a shorter rope would be /too/ accurate, forcing a smaller measure than necessary. The weight of the chain means that sagging is more common, as lest if you aren't a surveyor. Or maybe the exact strechiness of linen - less than wool but more than metal, is also part of the actual measure. ... : The relevance to this thread: My guess is that the MB and AhS might : agree that current technology can/should be used when it offers better : procedures for determination of objective facts (such as measuring : distances), provided there are no Chazals that specify a particular : procedure. But even though statistical analysis is an objective : science, the question of "Is this medicine reliable?" is a subjective And to reframe where I was going above in these terms: There are times when Chazal are not trying to establish objective facts. (Or, to revive another old thread and my hangup about how halakhah defines metzi'us: ... to establish as objectively as possible those facts that could potentially enter our subjective experience.) In nidon didan, the question would be: In order for a treatment not to be derekh emori, and to be allowed on Shabbos where medicine for a choleh sh'ein bo saqanah would be allows, does it 1- have to be established as potentially effect to the best we can establish it? or 2- have to be accepted as potentially effective by chazaqah, which is the normal rule for justifying presumption in cases of doubt? How objetive are we being asked to be? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 12 19:06:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:06:59 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not Shechted? Meaning, if we have a creature that cannot be Shechted, but it is not a non-Kosher species, it might be a Neveilah but be Kosher to eat because there is no prohibition on eating Neveilah. The non-fully gestated cow sheep or goat, even if it is born in the normal manner, is not classified in Halacha as Bakar or Tzon. See Rashi Chulin 72b end of Mishneh. It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 03:33:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Making an Avodah Zarah out of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170713103351.GD14756@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:54:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2017/rabbis-son-syndrome-religious-struggle-world-religious-ideals/ :> Love of Torah does not always translate into love of :> people -- or even love of God. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk :> caustically noted that increased religious observance is not :> always for the purpose of worshipping God, but rather :> sometimes it is for the sake of "worshipping the Shulchan Aruch." In R' Shlomo Wolbe, Alei Shur, vol II, "Frumkeit" , speaks of halachic obervant not for the sake of worshipping G-d, but speaks to why one would "worship the SA" if it isn't about G-d. A translation of the opening: > Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge to connect to the Creator. This > instinct is also found in animals. King David said, " The young lions roar > after their prey, and seek their food from G-d." (Psalms 104:21) "He gives > to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." (Psalms 147:9) > There is no need to understand these verses as [mere] figures of > speech -- animals have an instinctive sense that there exists One who > is concerned about their sustenance. This instinct [also] operates in > man -- on a higher level, of course. This natural frumkeit [instinct] > assists us in our service of G-d, and without this natural assistance > our service would would be extremely heavy upon us. However, frumkeit, > like any other instinctive urge that operates within man, is naturally > egotistical and self-centered. Accordingly, frumkeit drives a person to > do only that which is good for himself -- [in contrast, positive] actions > between man and his fellow man, as well as wholehearted actions between > man and G-d are not fueled by frumkeit. One who bases his service on it > alone remains egocentric. Even if he were to impose many stringencies > upon himself, he would not become a man of kindness, and he would not > reach [the level of] altruistic service. This is what necessitates that > we base our service specifically on intellect... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 16:31:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:00:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3abd2947-8a52-7433-c908-731af71507b2@sero.name> On 13/07/17 19:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr > Gouraud of the US. Google misinforms you. See, e.g., http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1412.htm#20 Or, lehavdil, http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/1935454 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 13 18:37:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> R' MB: The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. But Google tells me the depillatory was invented in 1844 by a Dr Gouraud of the US. The history of hair removal stories I found focus on women. And they suggest methods I cannot picture people did to cheeks: waxing, pumice, wax/resin, tweezers, and of course sharp blades -- starting with the Sumerians using the edge of a broken seashell. So I'm wondering how it was done. --------------------------------- Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which was intended for facial hair. KT, MYG P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:11:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> References: <20170713233140.GA19599@aishdas.org> <59682058.8fcfca0a.6e509.73a6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20170714151122.GB32531@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: : Shabbos 80b discusses a few depilatory methods, at least one of which : was intended for facial hair. It says that the poor "waxed" themselves with sid; and I am assumign that's not for skin as sensitive as cheeks. The rich used soles. Was this as an abrasive? Is fine flour even abrasive, or (as I seem to recall of today's grindings) -- soft? I think the rich used white makeup. And benos melakhim used shemen hamor, which we are told is acidic olive oil from underripe olives. While I do not doubt that benos melakhim tried this a means to reduce hair growth (the gemara says it also ma'adan habasar) I do doubt it worked. More recently (meaning, up to the mass production of depilatories) in Europe, cat's urine (for the ammonia, a strong base) or vinegar (an acid) were used. Both were believed to prevent or reduce hair growth, not remove what did gwo. But both failed double-blind testing. : P.S. I recall reading once that male Native Americans used to use : wooden tweezers to remove facial hair. Many NA nations also tend to produce far less facial hair than most Jewish men to start with. I guess people can learn to get used to it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:27:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714152753.GA14639@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:59PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it Assur to eat Neveilah because it's Neveilah, or only because it's not : Shechted? In his Bar Mitzvah derashah, R' Chaim Brisker proved that neveilah and tereifah were aspects of the same underlying issur. Thus explaining (among other points I do not remember) why the Rambam holds that a neveilah and a tereifah can be metz'tarfos to a kezayis issur. Which would imply that WRT eating, all non-shechted meat is the same, and the issur is the lack of shechitah, not the tum'as neveilah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 08:47:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The good and the bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170714154729.GB14639@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is explained in the Gemara Megilla 25a, at the top: "It implies : that [we thank Him] for the good but not for the bad, but that : contradicts the Mishna that says that a person must bless for the bad : just like he blesses for the good." But that doesn't mean he must bless for the bad whenever he blesses for the good. Which is I think the chiluq that resolves the problems you raised. : That other Mishna (in Brachos) teaches us that we are obligated to say : one bracha or the other, depending on the events at hand. If one : experiences some of God's goodness, he must thank Him for it. On : *other* occasions Hashem does things that are painful, but that is : irrelevant: Here and now one must thank Him for the good. Actually, even painful effects of the same occasion. Like the textbook case: Inheriting a large some of money requires making both Dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. : Thus there is no contradiction between the two mishnayos, as they are : talking about two different situations... I think they are both talking about the good and tragic in the same situations. The first mishnah is prohibiting someone from even implying in a non-response context that when experiencing tragedy, one can skip Dayan ha'emes. : So my chavrusa and I took out our siddur, to see if this is actually : followed. The first page we turned to was Modim, in the Amidah. It : turns out that Modim - especially the chasima of the bracha - is : mostly about the idea idea that God *IS* good, not so much about that : He *does* good.... Mah beinaihu? After all, all His "Middos" are about appearances and how the effects of his Action look to us. And actually, it pretty explicitly says in one point that it's about G-d appearing to us as Good -- "'haTov' shimkha". But as I opened, I didn't see Megillah as saying when we offer general thanks, it must be about both. Rather, he cannot be the kind of peson that skips thanking Him for those things He does "for our own good" (to paraphrase the stereotypical parent line). And thus, no problem in the 4th berakhah of bentching, either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:08:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: . R' Meir G Rabi asked: > It cannot be Shechted to prevent it being a Neveilah, just > like a horse for example, cannot be Shechted. Why can't a horse be shechted? Is it missing the simanim? Of course, it would still be assur to eat the horse because it is a tamay species, but would that prevent one from doing a valid shechita? (I vaguely recall a case where a choleh sheyesh bo sakana was prescribed pork by his doctor, and the rav told him to shecht the chazir.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:02:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of him that is generally accepted as accurate? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 14 14:26:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck asked: > I believe ? and I may be wrong on this (in which case I?m sure > I?ll be corrected!) ? that in most chassidish shuls, everyone > reads the haftorah to themselves. In most litvishe shuls only > the baal korei reads. And Nusach Sefard/non-chasidish shuls go > 50/50. > > Does that mesh with everyone else?s experience? I have no idea what you mean by "litvishe" in this context. Do you mean Nusach Ashenaz, or Yeshivish, or In A Yeshiva, or something else? Anyway, in the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls and yeshivos that I have attended, virtually no one reads the haftara to himself, regardless of whether the Reader is reading from a klaf, a printed Tanach, or a Chumash. And those few who *do* read it to themselves are (unfortunately) loud enough to make it difficult to hear the Reader. In the Nusach Sefard shuls I've been to, there much more people reading to themselves. In fact, the Reader often doesn't even attempt to raise his voice so that others can hear him. But I've attended Nusach Sefard shuls rarely enough that I cannot venture a guess about the percentages. R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:23:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 02:23:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185632c6b5e74915992256cfd1207daf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R' Joel Rich wrote: > I always assumed correcting when not from a klaf was more an > educational thing. What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an educational thing"? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ because I assumed that one was not being yotzeih with that reading but one's own Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 20:00:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:00:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes > are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of > the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an > educational thing"? I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. There is a chiyuv for a tzibur to read the Torah, although not on any individual to hear it. Even if ten men come into shul after krias hatorah they do not have to make it up, but if it was not read at all then the tzibur must make it up. But with the haftarah even if it was not read at all they need not make it up; this shows that there is no chiyuv, and therefore nothing that can be said not to have been fulfilled. Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 15 19:24:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? Or to be less pretencious: *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos on the other side? My wife is a righty and we use joint accounts. We are both listed as owners, and both of our names were on the mortgage. Even if I were supposed to hang my mezuzos on the left, are we shutefim in owning the house and therefore it should follow the rightward norm? I asked R' Gidon Rothstein, since it was his recent post on Torah Musings that launched my wondering, and he felt that it would go by the assumption that typical people coming in and out of the house are righty, and the owner's handedness shouldn't matter. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 08:25:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> References: <20170716022422.GA32279@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/07/17 22:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Why doesn't anyone discuss whether "yemin" means the right side when the > baal habayis is a lefty hanging a mezuzah for his own hom? > > Or to be less pretencious:*Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his > mezuzos on the other side? I wouldn't expect it, because I don't see any sevara to differentiate between houses based on who the owner is. Mezuzah is (lich'orah) a chovas cheftza, and the house is not left-handed! (See http://tinyurl.com/y9btfa9c , who cites R Chaim Brisker, Stencil #3) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/2017 6:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 14/07/17 17:26, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> What do you mean by "an educational thing"? Do you mean that mistakes >> are not m'akev the mitzvah? Surely if a mistake changes the meaning of >> the word, then the reading is invalid, no? Why would it be merely "an >> educational thing"? > > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let > alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply that it's not just casual reading? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 12:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170716193026.GA17994@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that : imply that it's not just casual reading? to strengthen the point, that "we" includes Sepharadim, who don't make berakhos on minhagim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 16 19:16:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28c39ae9-0df9-89c0-ea06-a5e1b0b700a7@sero.name> On 16/07/17 15:20, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, let >> alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. > > But we say a bracha before and after the haftarah. Doesn't that imply > that it's not just casual reading? It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a missed haftara. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:42:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:42:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The problem with OU DE In-Reply-To: References: <1500310874499.90870@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170718214244.GA27595@aishdas.org> On 7/17/2017 7:03 PM, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: > Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a > Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel > bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is > that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not > simultaneously. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote: : Why not? Bateil is bateil. See Chullin 11b. Dagim that "alu" into a qe'ara of meat may be eaten with milchig. But going on a plate of meat -- what does that mean? Does it mean cooking? Ashkenazim hold, "'alu' -- aval lo nisbashlu". It's na"t bar na"t. The Tur, the YD 95, the BY's discussion of the Rivan and Tosafos, Rama YD s' 2, the Shakh s"q 3, and the AhS s' 5,11-15 assert as much halakhah lema'aseh. The way you treat bitul, there would be no such thing as nosein ta'am. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 14:24:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: <596E7C94.5030109@schnurassociates.com> Our K'vasikin minyan at the Young Israel of Ave k in Flatbush, K & East 29, (45 minutes before HaNetz on Shabbos and YT, 30 minutes on cholo shel moed and RH), reads from a klaf only al pi HaGra and only the baal k'riah reads while everyone else just listens and answers awmen (no BHUS) -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos > on the other side? Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it on the right side of the one who enters." And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 16:47:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:47:22 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? Message-ID: R Akiva Miller asked - why can a horse not be Shechted? A horse cannot be Shechted the same way that a G cannot perform Shechitah. Shechitah is not a mechanical action performed to meet certain criteria - Shechitah requires the right person, the right animal and the proper action. The Mishneh Chullin 72b asks a Q we would never ask, in fact it takes a very long time to actually read and make sense of the Mishneh, so counter intuitive is its premise. Why is it that a horse is a Neveilah even if it is Shechted whereas a cow which is Shechted is not a Neveilah in spite of it being a Tereifa? In our mind, the non-Kosher status of a Tereifa is a consequence of its ritual blemish which in no way affects the Shechitah; of course the Shechitah should prevent the animal becoming a Neveilah. But that is not how the Mishneh sees things - the Mishneh understands that the Tereifa status of the cow invalidates the Shechitah - it is, in the Mishneh's mind, equivalent to Shechting a horse. The Mishneh answers that Yesh BeMino Shechitah - meaning, although the animal itself ought to be deemed not Shechted, nevertheless as a species it has an association with Shechitah so the Shechitah will, in spite of being imperfect, prevent it becoming a Neveilah. And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. R Micha already noted that this touches upon the [in]famous bar-mitzvah Pshettel of R Chaim. But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The Gemara [Chullin 113] requires a special Ribbuy to teach that there is an Issur to cook premature born cow with milk Gedi LeRabbos Es HaShellil. Why? Why might we think it is not like a regular cow? The Tiferes YaAkov explains that such an animal has no Issur Cheilev, Chullin 75a, which is unsurprising considering that it is not a BeHeimah, so we may well have argued there is no Issur BBCh; KMLan that it is deemed to be Bassar for the Issur of BBCh. Now think about this - a Jew may not cook nor eat BBCh If a Yid however is about to eat Cheilev, which he may not cook with milk since it is deemed to be Bassar, we cannot warn him that he is transgressing the Issur of eating BBCh. Why? Because Ein Issur Chal Al Issur - once the Issur of Cheilev is already in place the later Issur of BBCh cannot take hold. Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Which seems to indicate that although it is a Neveilah, there is no Issur to eat a prematurely born cow. [To be sure we would need to verify that it has not entered its ninth month.] Hence my Q - Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 18 19:23:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read, > let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid. Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps "minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes? > Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read > at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk. Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is that we're supposed to be doing? In a later post, he wrote: > It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's > takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that > one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias > hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur. We can derive this > from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it > must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a > missed haftara. I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read. Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:31:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> On 7/19/2017 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the > haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay > when the haftarah is read improperly? I don't think the question works. Consider: we have a chiyuv to daven shmoneh esrei. But there are different girsaot, so clearly, exact wording isn't critical to fulfilling the requirement. So we already see that there are different levels of chiyuvim, and that we are more medayek on exact wording on some levels than others. Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to something like haftara than there is for Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 03:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Lefty's Mezuzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719101803.GA11560@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> *Does* anyone discuss if a lefty should hang his mezuzos :> on the other side? : Yes, indeed. In YD 289:2, the Mechaber writes, "You have to affix it : on the right side of the one who enters." : And (someone who uses Rashi script just like) the Rama adds, "And : there's no difference whther he is left-handed or not." Besheim the Mordechai. The Shakh) says this is true even if the lefty lives alone or the whole family is lefty. Because mezuzah is a chiyuv on the house, not like tefillin's chiyuv, which is on the guf. The Be'eir Heiteiv quotes the Shakh, adding "vekhein nohagim". The AhS (s' 5) gives multiple reasons: 1- A house is made for anyone who lives there, not this specific person. Which might be the same explanation, might not. Seems related to the fact that we do not take mezuzos down when the next owner is Jewish. 2- He contrasts to tefillin, where the pasuq uses the word "yadkha" and we darshen "yad keihah", whereas "beisekha" is used to darshen the din that it's direction from which one enters. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 05:46:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84213f099d8841fb92a75e4a8d758038@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay when the haftarah is read improperly? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 04:27:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's > surely a lot more give in what can be considered "properly" > when it comes to something like haftara than there is for > Torah. We seem to agree that it *IS* possible to read the haftarah IMproperly, in contrast to R' Zev Sero, who wrote: > I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be > read, let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't > be invalid. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 06:52:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> On 18/07/17 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas > chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, But that is key. What is a chiyuv, or rather in Hebrew a chovah? As anyone who's read an Ivrit bank statement or balance sheet can tell you, it's a liability. "Lotzeis y'dei chovah", or "being yotzei", means discharging that liability. If there is no chovah then there is nothing from which to exit; one cannot speak of being yotzei something that is not a chiyuv. Now krias hatorah is not a chovah on any individual. If one missed leining one shabbos one needn't make it up. Even if there are 10 men who missed it, and therefore could make it up if they wanted to, they don't. But it is a chovah on the tzibbur; if for some reason an entire community was unable to read the Torah one week they must make it up the next week by reading two sedros. If they don't then their liability has not been discharged. When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". Of course if it is to be read it should be read correctly. *Anything* that is read should be read correctly; there is no virtue in reading carelessly, as if one's words are of no importance so it doesn't matter if one butchers them. But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, and since not reading it leaves no undischarged liability on the community therefore a bad reading doesn't do so either. > Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim > correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is > that we're supposed to be doing? Suppose my argument is incorrect, and there *is* some obligation which the community must discharge? How long a reading counts? We know that the gemara's mention of 21 pesukim is merely a recommendation, since we routinely disregard it. So how small *can* we make it? By analogy with krias hatorah we can say that fewer than three pesukim is not a reading at all. But maybe the analogy is inapt, and the takana is fulfilled by *any* reading from the nevi'im, even just one pasuk, or perhaps even a single phrase. After all the whole takanah is simply in memory of the time when krias hatorah was banned, so we read nevi'im instead; so perhaps even a very small reading is enough to evoke this memory. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< But bediavad even if a haftarah were mangled beyond recognition it's surely no worse than not having read it at all, >>> This illustrates why I suggested avoiding words like "chiyuv". Is our goal to be in a status of "no worse than not having read it at all"? Surely not! If we would be satisfied with such, then why do we bother reading it? Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I don't understand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 10:36:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: References: <695140c5-8d77-bb72-3c3a-2fbd9ca31d6a@sero.name> Message-ID: <51a89e09-5077-e733-156f-9027c6f70dc9@sero.name> On 19/07/17 13:20, Akiva Miller wrote: > > Let me be clear: I do realize that there may be a downside to correcting > someone who makes a mistake in the haftara (embarrassing him or > whatever). But that should be weighed against the upside, and RZS seems > to feel that there simply isn't any upside, and that's the part that I > don't understand. I'm saying that it's not *required*, and therefore it becomes a highly situational question of balancing the reader's sensitivity and the tircha detzibura against a desire to hear a haftara that doesn't grate on the nerves. There's no "I'm sorry but if we don't correct him we won't be yotzei". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 19 12:43:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Ramchal's Beard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170719194312.GA13614@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:02:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The Ramchal famously had the cleanshaven look. : I have no idea what you're referring to. Is there a famous painting of : him that is generally accepted as accurate? Mequbalim in Itali had a mesorah from the Rama miFano (late 16th - early 17th cent) that beards were only appropriate in EY. The Ramchal's lack of beard was mentioned in the charges against him when he was drummed out of Italy for teaching a very messianic Qabbalah too soon after Shabbeta Zvi. Someone once showed me a Chasam Sofer and a Chidah which refer to this practice. But I couldn't find it. Meanwhile, I found Gilyon Maharshah (R' Shelomo Eiger), at the end of YD 181, says that kamah gedolei hamequbalim, talmidei haAri, who cut their beards with scissors. So, scissors is no my default assumption, which means they probably had some visible stuble, if not enough to qualify as a "beard". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 02:09:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah In-Reply-To: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> References: <1664d427-5e7f-967e-5624-fa4e9e146e18@starways.net> Message-ID: <19840673-e64a-c7e5-41b9-92f64dd10daf@zahav.net.il> Ikkar ha-din, someone who can't properly enunciate Hebrew letters isn't allowed to pray from the amud, never mind read the Torah or Haftorah. I don't know if there is a need to correct someone who consistently makes mistakes but there is certainly no reason to allow him to read at all if he can't do it properly. As an aside: one of my rabbis said that RYBS didn't correct someone in class who made mistakes reading the Gemara text but if someone made a mistake with a pasuk in the Gemara, then the Rav let him have it. Ben On 7/19/2017 12:31 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Certainly the takana is to read it properly, but there's surely a lot > more give in what can be considered "properly" when it comes to > something like haftara than there is for Torah. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:11:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then > I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur) Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant. I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe "tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also. Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors, including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 21 05:56:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria Message-ID: RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah, however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and they composed brachos to be said with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept of "yotzei" or "not yotzei". The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing about the nature of the original obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 24 11:53:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah Message-ID: <20170724185345.GA20358@aishdas.org> In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61) discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads "leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving her a real gett. The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because "almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other misspellings that have only one possible intent. I was wondering if this is too fanciful: Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah" could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often given given in CE. Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could cross the readers mind. Maybe? Or too creative? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 06:47:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 25 12:40:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <7916d9ab-5e9c-fa61-53da-8323ba421c41@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 08:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721@aishdas.org> One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 09:50:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:36:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 10:34:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:31:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 11:13:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 12:10:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alma vs. almah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:21:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> References: <8e3fd492c3bd417c86504282def7aed1@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 13:49:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> References: <7d5bf9b54486473da6e1a0a0ae3186cf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <2B.2C.32204.ECF67795@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20170725181822.GA32176@aishdas.org> <20170726165058.GC12535@aishdas.org> <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e@sero.name> <20170726183144.GB19984@aishdas.org> <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 26 23:38:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and historical. He brings parts of the midrashim about Avraham Avinu's early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for any other reason than to understand the historical facts. Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 26 July 2017 08:49 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Washing Clothes During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 2. The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 3. Menorah on Arch of Titus (Micha Berger via Avodah) 4. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 5. Showering During the 9 Days (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) 6. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 7. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) 8. Re: alma vs. almah (elazar teitz via Avodah) 9. Re: alma vs. almah (Micha Berger via Avodah) 10. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Zev Sero via Avodah) 11. Re: The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash (Micha Berger via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:47:36 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Washing Clothes During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1500990347324.64391 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I am picking up my Bar Mitzvah boy from camp during the Nine Days. All of his clothing is in need of washing, otherwise he'll have nothing clean to wear. Under the circumstances may I wash his clothing during the Nine Days? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Rama (OC 551:3) tells us that the Ashkenazi minhag is not to launder clothing during the Nine Days. However, the Mishna Berura (ibid. 29) in the name of the Eliyah Rabah (ibid., Shaar Hatziyun 33) rules that if one has only one garment, or many garments which all require cleaning (see Piskei Teshuvos Vol. 6 p. 80:21), it is permitted to wash and do the laundry up until the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. In a case that one is permitted to do laundry, you may wash whatever clothing you will need for the duration of the Nine Days. In the past, one was only allowed to wash one garment at a time, as needed. But in our generation, when the push of a button can wash an entire load, this restriction does not apply (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok 8:50, Shu"t Yabia Omer 7:48 and Shu"t Be'er Moshe 7:32). However, one is not allowed to add clothing needed for after the Nine Days (Piskei Halachos ibid. end of 21). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:03 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170725194003.GB32176 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 12:18, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: :> Even today there are people who are willing to believe fantastic :> stories that could not possibly be true. Some years ago there was :> the story of the so-called talking fish. There were people who :> did indeed believe it. I once discussed this story with a :> neighbor and pointed out that it had been debunked. She replied, :> "But it could have happened." I decided not to say more. : You are not required to believe that this story did happen, but you : *are* required to believe that it could have happened. To claim : that He Who gave man a mouth cannot give one to a donkey or a fish : is apikorsus. Not 100%, it depends on the modality of the words "could" and "possibly" here. Yes, HQBH could do anything, the question of whether "anything" includes the paradoxical I will leave for the rishonim to argue. But there are things we know He wouldn't do. Such as rewarding sin. (And don't quibble about rewarding it in the short term for some other purpose, later punishment, or whatever. There is an iqar that overall net-net-net, sin is punished.) And if someone believes that HQBH wouldn't give a fish the power to talk during an era of hesteir panim, I would not label them an apiqoreis. In fact, I would be inclined to agree. And therefore, the story "could not possibly be true" if we limit our possibilities to the world of things that don't defy what we believe about Retzon haBorei. Quoting the rest not because I have what to say about it, but because it more belongs on Avodah than on Areivim: : The set of true events is necessarily an infinitesimal subset of the : set of possible events, which is in turn an infinitesimal subset of : the set of conceivable events. Whether a talking fish is in the : first set is a question of evidence, and skepticism is appropriate, : but whether it's in the second set or only in the third set is a : question of emunah. : I have not heard that the story was in fact debunked, and I wonder : whether this is true, but if so it doesn't surprise me. Such : stories are more likely to be hoaxes than true... :> There are people today who insist on taking midrashim literally :> even though both RSRH and Reb Yisroel Salanter said that they were :> not to be taken literally. : What if they did say this? No matter how often you pretend they are : the definitive voices of Judaism, and all Jews must accept their : opinions, it won't be any truer. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:59:25 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] Menorah on Arch of Titus Message-ID: <20170726155925.GA6721 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One of the arguments against the menorah on the Arch of Titus harasha being The Menorah taken from the Heikhal is the base. It has an octoganol base. If it even had three feet, they were short extensions of that base that didn't show up in what's left of the relief. Maybe small balls. There is no indication of any. Either way, 3 feet on an octagon lacks symmetry -- 3 of 8 sides or corners had a foot? But the bigger problem is that it has representational art on it. The Menorah would not have reliefs of sea lions, hippocamps, dragons, eagles (their garland, maybe), etc... (Of course then there's the whole curved arm vs alakhson thing, but we've discussed that enough times before.) Which is why I was surprised to see this quote from Josephus. I would think it would be mandatory reading for any discussion of the subject, but it was new to me. So I'm sharing. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews ... - Jewish War (VII.5.5) I don't know if the basis is the change in construction or -- like the branches -- just a description of the original. Brass neiros? But it could be read as: the menorah also, that was made of gold (though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of, for its middle shaft was fixed upon a base), and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length... Which would solve the above problems. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:50:58 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726165058.GC12535 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:11:46PM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : On 25/07/17 16:48, Allan Engel wrote: : >That would be obvious and would hardly need saying, as many : >midrashim contradict each other. : : And that is all the Rambam is saying. He's *not* making some bold : statement against medroshim-as-history. He's defining who's an : apikores, and including those who reject midroshim, so he has to : specify that this doesn't mean one must make ones head explode by : accepting every single medrosh as literally true. Some are : literally true, some aren't, and one must use ones best judgment : about which is which. : : This implies that on many specific medroshim there will be : legitimate differences of opinion, and therefore one can't dismiss : someone as an apikores merely because he holds a specific medrosh to : be non-literal; one must inquire further and find out *why* he holds : so, because he might have a legitimate reason. I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were said bederekh chidah umashal. I see nothing at all there about machloqes, only about learning nimshalim and not taking impossible meshalim as historical fact. Here is the section in full: You must know that the words of the sages are differently interpreted by three groups of people. The first group is the largest one. I have observed them read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sage sin accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God say the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, "The nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know, as it is written: "If only they would be utterly silent, it would be accounted to them as wisdom" (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, "We do not understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to explain it." But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They, therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to their literal meaning. The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consist of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They regard themselves as cultivated men, scientist, critics, and philosophers. How remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated, and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real meaning of their teachings would be clear to them. There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: "To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov. 1:6). All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning and not with its obvious meaning, as: "Let me now put forth a riddle to you" (Judges 14:12). Since the words of the sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies. How can we complain if they formulate their wisdom in analogies and employ such figures of speech as are easily understood by the masses, especially when we note that the wisest of all men did precisely that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I have in mind Solomon in Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and parts of Ecclesiastes. It is often difficult for us to interpret words and to educe their true meaning from the form in which they are contained so that their real inner meaning conforms to reason and corresponds with truth. This is the case even with Holy Scriptures. The sages themselves interpreted Scriptural passages in such a way as to educe their inner meaning from literal sense, correctly considering these passages to be figures of speech, just as we do. Examples are their explanations of the following passages: "he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit" (II Sam. 23:20); "Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem" (ibid. 23:15). The entire narrative of which these passages are a part was interpreted metaphorically. Similarly, the whole Book of Job was considered by many of the sages to be properly understood only in metaphoric terms. The dead bones of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37) were also considered by one of the rabbis to make sense only in metamorphic terms. Similar treatment was given to other passages of this sort. Now if you, reader, belong to either of the first two groups, pay no attention to my words nor to anything else in this section. You will not like it. On the contrary, it will irritate you, and you will hate it. How could a person who is accustomed to eating large amounts of harmful food find simple food in small quantities appealing, even though they are good for him? On the contrary, he will actually find them irritating and he will hate them. Do you not recall the reaction of the people who were accustomed to eating onions, garlic, fish, and the like? They said: "Now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have naught save this manna to look to" (Num. 11:6). But if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. You will sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a direct faith, as Scripture says: "To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (Eccles. 12:10). If you consider my book in this spirit, with the help of God, it may be useful to you. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" To: "avodah at aishdas.org" Subject: [Avodah] Showering During the 9 Days Message-ID: <1501090511329.50972 at stevens.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please see http://tinyurl.com/ycghuo2q [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/494286688/Ohr-Somayach-Logo-150sq_bigger.jpg] Showering During the Nine Days?! by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz tinyurl.com YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:34:24 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger , avodah The General Discussion Area for Avodah Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <733e7a55-282c-8e80-fbc3-010d0464f64e at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"; format="flowed" On 26/07/17 12:50, Micha Berger wrote: > I think you misrepresent the Rambam. The original is here > (scrolled ????? ???"? ???? "???" / ??? ??? ?? ????? www.daat.ac.il ??? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ... > to the right place in the intro to Cheileq), but given that the list > STILL can't do Hebrew, here's a translation from Merkaz Moreshet haRambam > (paragraphing theirs). I do not know Entire Intro to Perek Helek - Maimonides Heritage Center www.mhcny.org Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 3 world to come is the ultimate good or whether some other possibility is. Nor does one often find persons who distinguish ... > how you can read the following and conclude anything but his insistence > that midrashic stories are NOT history, and that > 1- people who think otherwise and therefore believe nimna'os are > aniyei daas, yeish lehitzta'er aleihem lesikhlusam; > 2- people who think these stories are meant to be historical, realize > they can't be, and yi'agu al divrei chakhamim; and > 3- the wise few know that all they say about devarim hanimna'im were > said bederekh chidah umashal. On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and have no meaning *but* the literal, so that if one rejects the literal reading of any maamar Chazal one must reject it altogether, because there is nothing else. Given this false choice, the righteous fools accept the literal reading even if it poses terrible difficulties, while the wicked fools reject the maamar altogether, and therefore also its authors. The wise understand that there's a lot *more* going on in a maamar Chazal than just the surface reading, and therefore *if the context indicates* that the surface reading was not intended to be accepted one may reject it without rejecting the whole maamar, just as Chazal themselves did with pesukim. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:44 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , llevine at stevens.edu, Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726183144.GB19984 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On the contrary, I think you are misrepresenting him. Using your : own translation, he explicitly criticises those (on both sides) who : imagine that Chazal's words are *only ever* meant literally, and : have no meaning *but* the literal... The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, but for understand[ing] the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. Even the uneducation should know they're not literraly true. No? And he attacks them for expound[ing] the laws and the teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they say that this little people is foolish and ignoble. "Yeish lahem dibah veharichuq min haseikhel..." When it comes to the 2nd group, yes, they could reach the same dismissive attitude whether the problem is their believing that Chazal taught us to believe the absurd, or that Chazal taught us stories rather than anything of depth. However, the Rambam doesn't criticize their assuming that the literal is silly. He criticizes their assuming that Chazal meant the literal and therefore that their teachings are silly. But the third kat, like the first, is more clearly about the need to sometimes abandon the litaral: The members of this group understa nd that the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then this third kat rejects it. To resume where I left off: Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. And he adds further down: But if you belong to the third grou p, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Unreasonable literal readings point to maamarei chazal that have only nimshal meaning, and the Rambam would not want us to believe the fantastic, irrational or unbelievable. Nor is the Rambam alone; RDE's Daas Torah has pages of sources about the historicity or ahistoricity of medrash. RDE posted a summary here years back. R/Prof Y Levine would shortly be pointing us to RSRH's position, if this didn't forestall him: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:13:46 +0300 From: elazar teitz via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud: with a yud could be misread as "v'din," so that the sentence would be misinterpreted as "the din is that you should have a get from me," rather than the true intent, "v'dein," meaning "this shall be your get from me." (Parenthetically, the same spelling was carried over to the k'suba, misleading many readers under the chuppa to pronounce it as "v'dan," rather than the correct "v'dein.") Likewise, the word indicating the right to remarry is written "l'hisnasva," with a hei, rather than the standard "l'isnasva" with an alef, lest it be misunderstood as two words, "la t'nasva," meaning "she should not remarry." If we are this concerned about mistaken readings even when the word is written correctly, certainly we should be concerned if a different word is written which actually changes the meaning, even if such was not the intent. Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an alef is farfetched. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:10:29 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: elazar teitz , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] alma vs. almah Message-ID: <20170726191029.GA11149 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:13:46PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : In a get,we go to extremes of spelling to avoid any possible : misunderstanding, even if the correct reading and a possible misreading : differ only in nikkud. That's why "v'dein" is written without the yud... There are even long vavs in teirukhin, shevuqin, and peturin so that they aren't read as teirikhin (etc) as a theoretical statement. Which is beyond just haqpadah in spelling (AhS EhE 126:57( This came from AhS Yomi, I'm aware of the issues raised in the rest of the siman. Although, since I didn't bother giving more context, perhaps others overestimated my case. : Thus, I think that reading philosophical or theological meaning : as a basis for the objection to the appearance of a hei in place of an : alef is farfetched. As I said, I thought it might be. What got me started was that unlike the other cases, RYME (se'if 61) didn't sound so sure that leber'ias almah "toward the creation of the young lady" was a plausible misread. Perhaps in this context, "almah" (hei) would be read as being from olam; it is only "yoseif soveil leshon na'arah milashon olam". "Veyish makhshirin beshe'as hadechaq" as the Rama says. Harbei gedolim allow the gett beshe'as hadechaq when you can't get another, even when it's not a risk of igun. So, without context "almah" is only more likely to mean na'arah, and with context it's less likely. I therefore started thinking that maybe the only reason why halakhah considers the misread plausible enough to consider at all is because notzrim count from the date of a mythical virgin birth -- leberi'as almah. (Which is far from reading in philosophical or theological meaning. More like positing a din reflecting the metzi'us caused by social context.) But I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that while I find the notion pretty, it's too far of a stretch. I just wrote this long post to explain what I saw aethetically in it. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:21:39 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Micha Berger Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <24fa8670-990b-8d7a-57fd-9a5764b59d47 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 26/07/17 14:31, Micha Berger wrote: > The first kat are criticized for believing the literal version. > Not for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning, He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a deeper meaning. It's right in his words. "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense". That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise -- because they're unaware there *is* any other meaning, so they think if they reject it they'd be rejecting the maamar itself ch"v, and they don't want to do that. The third group understand that there is more going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is futile. > If the literal is impossible or nonsense, which the Rambam believes is > a meaningful category -- and not "anything is possible to G-d" -- then > this third kat rejects it. Nonsense is nonsense; one cannot make sense of it. If a passage appears on its surface to be a mere word salad, and one is aware that it has deeper levels, then it's easy to conclude that it has no surface level at all. But if one is unaware of the possibility of deeper readings then one will strive to find sense on the surface and come up with all sorts of strange interpretations, because ones mind is imposing order on something that has none. "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable that I'm calling apikorsus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:49:18 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Allan Engel Subject: Re: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash Message-ID: <20170726204918.GA6946 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He explicitly says *yes* for believing it to the exclusion of a : deeper meaning. It's right in his words. : "They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple literal : sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden : meaning at all. [...] They, therefore, believe that the sages : intended no more in their carefully emphatic and straightforward : utterances than they themselves are able to understand with : inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the sages : only in their literal sense". And you skip everything he says about believing foolishness as irrelevant? Here's what you ellided, again: They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder understanding. But people who understood science, acquired knowledge, who posess the perfection which would rouse them to insight from within, or have somoene to stimulate them to profounder understanding wouldn't believe that "all sorts of impossible things must be". : That's *why* they're so attached to the surface meaning that they : can't let it go even when the context indicates otherwise... : The third group understand that there is more : going on, and therefore it's acceptable, *when the context calls for : it*, to say that a specific maamar *has* no surface meaning, and : thus trying to make sense of its words as a straight narrative is : futile. So you are agreeing that one SHOULD let go of surface meaning when context indicates that they should? That's the problem is not only a lack of nimshel meaning, but that they believe a mashal that is ahistoric? Then what are we in disagreement about? What then did you mean by, "He's *not* making some bold statement against medroshim-as-history." If the surface meaning is incomprehensible as a straight narrative, then what is left of medroshim as history. In any case, as I've been describing the Rambam, he is saying that chazal tell these stories for their nimshalim. Some of the stories may be historical, but that's irrelevant. And that's why Chazal are comfortable repeating stories that can't be true. Unlike your claim, more typical of more recent derakhim in machashavah, that since HQBH can do anything, it would be apiqursus to say that some story can't be true. And I think the difference is modal logic, and differences between meanings of "can't". Hashem has no limitations of koach to prevent Him from doing anything (the paradoxical and meaningless aside for the moment), but we know that some Divine Decisions are absurd and would never happen. At least, those of us not in the first kat do. ... : "Unreasonable" does not mean "requires miracles". It is the very : attitude that regards the supernatural as inherently unreasonable : that I'm calling apikorsus. Thinking that HQBH wouldn't violate the hesteir Panim of galus isn't apiqursus. Whether or not either of us would choose to believe He actually did, such a belief is certainly mutar. And if someone does believe that, or believe that miracles only happen in some other limited rance of circumstances, and therefore does not believe that a given medrash could be historical, he is not an apiqoreis and is indeed in the Rambam's 3rd kat. For example, what if someone believes that only people who already are such steadfast maaminim and baalei bitachon that a given neis wouldn't surprise them or strike them out of the ordinatry at all would experience one. (Taken from the Sefornu or Ramban on the justice of "hikhbadti es leiv Par'oh ve'es leiv ha'am".) Then he could believe that Chanina ben Dosa bentched shabbos licht with vinegar, but not many other aggaditos. And according to the Rambam, no one really saw sheidim. Just as no navi really saw mal'akhim, leshitaso -- and of the two, he only believes mal'akhim even exist! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society ? Da'as ? Rashamim ? Tif'eres www.aishdas.org The AishDas Society is committed to the promotion of feeling and thought within the framework of Orthodox Jewish observance. Fax: (270) 514-1507 ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 95 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:13:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? Message-ID: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 06:14:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: From "Religion Within Reason" by Steven Cahn: "To have faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . To describe someone as a person of faith suggests that the individual is strong-willed, fearless, and unwavering." Question to all - what percentage of the frum world have no doubts? How many don't think about it at all? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 05:11:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Kahn via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Showering during the Nine days In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: see: Is it permissible to shower during the Nine Days? http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/is-it-permissible-to-shower-during-nine.html [or -mi] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:09:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:09:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? I am in the middle of R' Mordechai Torczyner's (CC-ed, please include him in replies) shiurim on ribis. http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&category=0,234696 In particular, shiurim no.s 3-5 are about refunds. It's under 2 hrs total, and if you know something of the sugya, 1.25x speed is doable. The first lines of the source sheet to those shiurim is "Lamah yeish chiyuv lehachzir ribis?" http://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=529082 If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 10:17:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : the Ritva on kiddushin 6b says ribbit (illegal interest) must be returned : by the lender, but it is not gezel (robbery) or a tikkun lav (as in lav : hanitak l'aseh). So what is the force that causes the return? Does the : lender have to give maser ksafim from it?? If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would be subject to maaser kesafim. -Micha -- Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih but not a tikkun for the lav) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 27 19:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Torczyner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] question of interest? In-Reply-To: References: <7876a7b0291c4455beb0a8ca4aec3744@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170727170936.GB811@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> If it's because the money is owed, then I would think the maaser kesafim >> was already accounted for the first time you earned the money. >> If it's because of an asei, then perhaps receiving the ribbis back would >> be subject to maaser kesafim. ... > Agreed-my challenge with the ritva is that he seems to say it is > something else (I'm not sure what unless u say it is because of the aseih > but not a tikkun for the lav) > KT Hi R' Joel, Indeed, the Ritva's view is that ribbis, once paid, belongs to the creditor. The creditor is obligated to pay it back, but the money is his for purposes including Kiddushin. Other applications include whether the borrower has the power to forgive the repayment, and whether the creditor's heirs have a duty to repay. Kol tuv, Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 10:19:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:19:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: Alternative Medicine in Halachah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c1d64f4e4564ec7b59a1d187400d9bd@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The following statement was made , "The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didn't use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time." ============================== I'd appreciate specific examples ============================== Joel ? I was basing it off examples by Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Rosh Yeshiva of Birkat Moshe in Ma'ale Adumim in his book: Probability and Statistical Inference in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistical-Inference-Mediaeval-Literature/dp/0802018629 ===================== I finally tracked down a copy of the book and read through it-I?d simply say that one must underline heavily the statement ?the best of what was known to them in their time? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:09:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> I read Rachel Levmore's "Decentralizing Religious Authority" at Teaser: Overview Orthodox Jewish life used to be a simpler matter for those who wanted to lead one. There was an unspoken system in place. One could approach the local rabbi with a question. If he didn't know, scholars higher up in the "hierarchy" could weigh in until the question reached the "gadol hador." Despite the plurality of approaches which always existed, there was a definitive address whose opinion would be accepted by all (or almost all). Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone. The present circumstances, which have witnessed a breakdown of authority in general society coupled with the absence of an uncontested authoritative Torah scholar, has led to absurd situations. Lacking agreed-upon "gedolim" today, a void exists... Without any proper halakhic discourse between various rabbis who deem themselves to be leaders (even if they lack followers)... And so on, with a pretty sociological take on the problem, and how it applies to controversy over the halachic prenup. As is usual for me, I'm intrigued by the theoretical meta-issue. Given that we've entered an era that there is a dirth of gedolim whose rulings are followed across multiple communities and eidot, is there a significant change to how halakhah is done? And I'm not saying this is entirely about nisqatnu hadoros, and how today's gedolim aren't like those of my youth. Some of it is also the effects of universal education, google, social-media cynicism and echo chamber, and the social trends that cause the popularity of such social media, and other societal changes that made people less likely to respect authority that isn't fully in agreement with what they decided the truth should be. Returning to snipping from the article: The Internet is not the forum for halakhic rows. Rabbinic tradition prescribes that halakhic disputes be conducted in depth, not superficially through "virtual" statements in cyberspace. Proper procedure dictates that rabbinic forums be held where differences of opinions can be [19]discussed face to face. If that is not possible, then [20]scholarly books are written or [21]rabbinic articles published. Alarmist attempts to create fear among innocent lay-people cannot be considered credible halakhic writing. And: [I]t is not for naught that the Mishnah directs us to choose who is our rabbi: [24]aseh lekha rav. It is your responsibility as a God-fearing Jew to determine which rabbi you will follow, according to your perception of his righteousness, scholarship, and derekh--philosophy of Jewish life. For a variety of reasons, it should be a rabbi who lives in the same community as you, not least since he would then be familiar with the challenges and facts of your life. In the United States, the Rabbinical Council of America has assembled an impressive body of rabbinic figures... Visible links ... 19. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-plea-from-Jerusalem-to-the-worlds-Orthodox-rabbis-483210 20. https://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%94.html?id=FpsqQwAACAAJ 24. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en My first stab at answering my own question is to wonder how long halakhah has been centralized around a few globally known gedolim. >From the geonim until the late 19th century, were there any? And even when there was a few posqim the whole world turned to (eg the geonim), how many question did they go to the gedolim for? Wouldn't the size of the world back then mean that most questions were far more local, with the mara de'asra having much more of a final say, with consensus being more of a regional thing? If halachic authority is being decentralized, is that something new, or a reversion to the norm, to how non-Sanhedrin (or as the Rambam would have it, post-talmudic) halakhah supposed to work? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:19:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 13:32:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs: A Modern Midrash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170728203214.GA6178@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:38:18AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam certainly believes that some midrashim are factual and : historical... But not the fantastical ones. Zev and I are arguing over two things: 1- What that includes. Zev believes that the inclusion of miracles does not make a medrash fantastical. And in fact to believe so be apiqursus. (Actually, Zev said the believer would be an apiqoreis; but the question whether every believer in apiqursus is necessarily an apiqoreis is far afield. So I'll still to this less controversial subset of his claim.) I disagree. The Rambam associates nissim with nevu'ah. Someone who lacks the yedi'ah to get one isn't going to be around to witness the other. Therefore, aggadic stories of miracles placed after Tanakh are fantastical. While Hashem could still in principle perform nissim, the Rambam believes He wouldn't. (Even when the story is told of a member of chazal and their level of ruach haqodesh.) 2- Is there a default? Zev understands that the default is to take a medrash historically, unless it must be ruled out. Again, I disagree. Medrashim are described as metaphors and riddles. The story and its historical content just isn't an issue. You can't assume anything about a medrash being historical or ahistorical qua medrash. A good bit of history and a good tall tale can be used equally well for teaching by metaphor. Implying, you would need outside reason to assume one or the other. Which is how the Rambam then says that if the story doesn't fit how the world works physically, metaphysicall or theologically -- ie what that translation I googled up called "fantastic" -- insisting its historical when it can't be is silly. So: : Since that's the case there, one could reasonably assume that there are : other midrashim he also takes to be factual, so I can't see how you could : attribute to the Rambam a position of all midrashim being non-literal. Be happy, no one in this conversation does. In my understanding of Zev's view, the Rambam says that any medrash that isn't impossible (and nissim are possible) should be assumed to be historical. In my view, wondering about the historicity of the story misses the whole point of medrash. But if the story does not fit the way Hashem runs the universe -- which according to the Rambam would include miracle stories happening after Malakhi, and many of the stories before -- assume it is ahistorical. : early life as a historical narrative (in the old fashioned sense) at : the beginning of Hilchos AZ. That material is not brought there for : any other reason than to understand the historical facts. The Rambam there has outside reason to believe that medrashic description; it fit what the Nabatean Agriculture implied abot the birth of their religion. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:00:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 05:00:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> <195f2d9194714ed0928c97ee5c6af943@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: True, especially in the MO/DL world. The site had an article a few months ago about how the MO/DL simply aren't looking for gedolim or they define the role of a gadol in way that strips him of much of this supposed authority. Ben On 7/28/2017 10:19 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > My reaction to the article was that we get the leadership we want. Given the surrounding culture's focus on individual autonomy I doubt that any previous generation "universally recognized gedolim" would be so recognized today, even by other "gedolim" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 28 14:51:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:51:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a matter of doubt? Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From ?Religion Within Reason? by Steven Cahn: ?To have > faith is to put aside any doubts, and doing so is sometimes > beneficial, because doubt may be counter productive . . . It depends on what he means by "putting aside" one's doubts. If "putting aside" means that one does have doubts, but denies this fact, and acts as if his faith was complete, this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and in general, A Bad Thing. It is comparable to one who feigns humility; the odds of an eventual implosion are too high. Rather, one must be honest about his doubts or questions, and work on resolving them. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 29 20:12:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Math behind kulan chayav Message-ID: <20170730031250.GA2671@aishdas.org> "Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince." Lachlan J. Gunn, et al. Proceedings of The Royal Society A. To be published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00900 Magazine article on said paper (H/T R/Dr Josh Backon): https://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html This paper focuses on the case of identifying a criminal in a police line-up, archeological evidence, and crypography testing, but I'll just use the first as an example. Sometimes a line-up is like picking out an apple out of a group of bananas. But usually, there is measurable probability of error. Whether it's 48% for a criminal who runs through the crime scene or the probability of mistaking one's kidnapper, there is always some probability of error. Now, what's the probability that no one makes that error? If 10 people unanimously identify the same person, is it more likely that no one made the rror, or that there is a systemic bias leading people to select the same member of the line-up? This paper shows the math (and has plots for various probabilities of error). It takes far fewer people than you'd think before a unanimous finding becomes suspicious. And the paper even cites the din as precedent: However, this is not necessarily the case and more confirmations can surprisingly disimprove our confidence that the defendant has been correctly identified as the perpetrator. This type of possibility was recognised intuitively in ancient times. Under ancient Jewish law [13], one could not be unanimously convicted of a capital crime -- it was held that the absence of even one dissenting opinion among the judges indicated that there must remain some form of undiscovered exculpatory evidence. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 07:48:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20). I am attending a Bris on Tisha B'Av. May I say "Mazal Tov" to the baby's father? If I meet a sick person on Tisha B'Av, may I wish him a "Refuah Shleimah" (a full recovery)? Are these also prohibited forms of greeting? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l rules that Mazal Tov for a recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B'Av since it is considered a blessing and not a greeting (Dirshu M.B. Beiurim and Musofim 554:63 citing Halichos Shlomo Bein HaMitzorim Vol. 15 Orchos Halacha 30). However, if at all possible, one should wait for a different day to express this Mazal Tov (Chut Sheini Vol. 2 p. 327). Our minhag is to perform a Bris on Tisha B'Av after the Kinos are completed, even if it is before Chatzos (mid-day), because of Zerizim makdimim l'Mitzvos, those who serve Hashem with alacrity, do mitzvos as quickly as possible (Mechaber, Rama 559:7 and Mishna Berurah ibid s.k. 26). Rav Shlomo Zalman was of the opinion that one can certainly say "Mazal Tov" at the Bris even before Chatzos (ibid). Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l however rules that the Mazal Tov for the Bris should only be said after Chatzos (Dirshu M.B. ibid citing Shmaitza D'Moshe p. 431). Although "Sholom Aleichim" should not be said to an Avel (one who is in mourning), the Gesher HaChaim (21:67:7) permits wishing "Refuah Shleima" to an Avel who is ill, since this is considered a blessing and not a greeting. For the same reason it is permitted on Tisha B'Av to wish a "Refuah Shleima" to a person who is ill (Dirshu M.B. ibid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 10:24:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:48pm GMT, Professor L. Levine quoted today's OU kosher Halacha Yomis: : Q. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra Tova" : "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as greeting one's friend : is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" (Mechaber 554:20)... I'm going to use this to share the quick thought in my most recent blog post: The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. Tzom qal! -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 11:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 31/07/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The last Tishah beAv will end with us rushing to finally get to say > "Hello!" to our shul-mates the way in years past we rushed to the > table in the back with the orange juice and rugelach. The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time that day is a fast rather than a yomtov. Though we still hold out hope that that was last year. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 31 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The last Tishah BeAv?! Perhaps you meant to write the last time : that day is a fast rather than a yomtov... That was obviously my intent. HOWEVER... We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent ge'ulah. So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust. After all, a commemoration of the ge'ulah after Galus Edom would be far more compelling. (I mentioned this to someone after Maariv, and he suggested that since neither July or August line up with our months that well, maybe it'll be Tish'ah beLeo. I don't think it has the same commemorative quality.) -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 03:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Menuchah Schwat via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. > So, MAYBE when this date becomes a holiday, we'll be calling it > Tish'ah beYuli or Tish'ah beOgust... Tisha baChamishi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 06:27:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 8/1/2017 6:01 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent > ge'ulah. Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used to be a day of mourning?" Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 08:40:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:27:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 1-Aug-2017, at 6:01am, Micha Berger wrote: :> We call the month Av as a zikaron of Galus Bavel and the subsequent :> ge'ulah. ... : Um... all of our month names are Babylonian. Including Adar, which : is a month of joy. There's no reason we wouldn't be calling Tisha : B'Av, and teaching our children, "Did you know that Tisha B'Av used : to be a day of mourning?" What's that "um" about? The month names being Babylonian is a given sitting behind the sentence you quote. It's an often referred to Y-mi, RH 1:2 (vilna 6a) "De'amar R' Chanina: shemos chadashim alu beyadam miBavel." Then going on to mention some pre-Bavli month names found in Tanakh - Risanim, Bul, Ziv, showing how that all changes in Nechemia and Esther. Sure, when talking about 9 beAv the fast, we may well teach them we called it 9 beAv. But, as I suggested in the OP, maybe after the ge'ulah from Galus Edom, we'll do the same with the Julian / Gregorian month names. It will, after all, be a much more momentus ge'ulah, being final and lasting. If Anshei Keneses haGedolah thought it was appropriate to commemorate one ge'ulah in this manner, perhaps we should assume al achas kamah vekamah the end of our current galus would be commemorated similarly. On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:01:50PM +0300, Menuchah Schwat wrote: : Tisha baChamishi That's ambiguous. The chumash uses "bachodesh" to be clearer about which is the day count, and which is the month. Even if the month number is a cardinal ("-i" - fifTH) and the day is an ordinal (no suffix) the way you wrote them. You don't explain *why* you think we'd go back to the biblical system, rather than commemorating the ge'ulah from Galus Edom. After all, even the nevi'im didn't stick to the original numbered months. And I think my suggested parallel makes /some/ sense, if not necessarily what the Sanhedrin will end up deciding. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kinos: Hashem as Spaceman? In-Reply-To: <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> <20170731172437.GA18778@aishdas.org> <20170801030150.GA23262@aishdas.org> <25A7D67C-2E02-4E26-B1E2-A7F21A23A532@inter.net.il> <20170801154038.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In Kinah #7 (Aholi Asher Ta'avta), the Kalir wrote "v'nihyeita ketas bechalal". To our ears this evokes images of loneliness and isolation, of someone surrounded by vacuum, light-years from anywhere and anyone, but what did "chalal" even mean to people with a Ptolemaic model (if that) of the universe? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 12:34:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> References: <1501512458014.6580@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 14:34:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av Message-ID: I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. Kol tuv, Ilana ---------------------- I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it even is one), I think you are doing OK! -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 15:04:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <187d2f.769a1cbd.46b254d0@aol.com> From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah " >> There's a sweet teenager on our block with a significant developmental disability. He always greets me with an enthusiastic hello and a smile when I encounter him and is clearly pleased when I respond. This afternoon he greeted me as usual, and (without having much time to think about it) I greeted him back. I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk hurting his feelings. << Kol tuv, Ilana >>>>>> What you did instinctively was the right thing to do. Here is what Eliyahu Kitov says in _The Book of Our Heritage_: --quote-- It is prohibited to greet one's friend or acquaintance on Tisha B'Av, and it is even prohibited to say "Good morning." If, however, one is greeted, he should answer in a low tone, in order not to arouse resentment." --end quote-- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 21:51:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:51:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed Message-ID: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand that not everyone agrees with this position). Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can determine where the issur actually is? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 1 23:57:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB, quoting Rachel Levmore: > Alas, the last of the great Torah giants, those respected by Orthodox > Jewry the world-over even in cases of disagreement, have passed on. > Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Menachem Schneerson, > Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Ovadiah Yosef are all gone Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef were still alive and active. And if someone writes a similar article in another few decades, perhaps some of today's great poskim will have been added posthumously to the list... Not to be cynical, but could it be that one of the factors that makes a gadol universally recognized and accepted across Orthodoxy is that he is no longer among the living? Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 04:18:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:18:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Issur Karet removed In-Reply-To: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> References: <728ce173-14f6-4611-8cb7-391c5729f779@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 02/08/17 00:51, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Someone in a Facebook discussion left me with a question. Going to Har > Habayit is justified based on new information, ya'ani we now possess > information which previous generations didn't have. Therefore we can > certify that certain areas on Har Habayit are safe (yes, I understand > that not everyone agrees with this position). > > Are there any other examples of an issur karet or a potential issur > karet (or even a stam issur lav) that we now permit because we can > determine where the issur actually is? *Any* case where we got new information. Take the classic case of two pieces of fat, one shuman and one chelev, but one doesn't know which is which, and then one later finds out. Before finding out both were assur; if one ate one of them beshogeg one brings an asham and the other piece remains assur. Once the new information is acquired the shuman becomes permitted, and if it transpired that one ate the chelev one must now bring a chatas. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 05:07:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from the OU: > The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 554:41) rules that saying "Tzafra > Tova" "Good Morning" is prohibited on Tisha B'Av, just as > greeting one's friend is by saying "Shalom Aleichem" > (Mechaber 554:20). ... ... > > Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l rules that Mazal Tov for a > recent Simcha may be said on Tisha B?Av since it is > considered a blessing and not a greeting. ... ... I honestly don't understand the distinction that causes a "greeting" to be assur, while allowing a "blessing" to be mutar. I would think that "good morning" is a blessing. Aren't we praying that the other person's morning will be a good one? Perhaps the distinction is in the degree of kavana with which the "good morning" is given and received. After all, if it were said as a blessing, and received as one, then wouldn't we respond to the "good morning" with something like "amen"? Perhaps we can prove "good morning" to be a mere greeting, by pointing out that the response is usually a perfunctory repeat of the words "good morning", rather than anything serious. In this light, I confidently suggest that "How are you?" is definitely a greeting, because usually no one expects a response other than "okay" or "fine". What of the Mechaber's halacha of "Shalom Aleichem"? Surely we would agree that "Shalom Aleichem" is a blessing, no? After all, the response to "Shalom Aleichem" is "Aleichem Shalom", and I suspect (YMMV) that this is usually sincere rather than perfunctory. This brings us to the very core of this halacha: RSZA is drawing a line between greeting and blessing, and his halacha about Mazel Tov makes no sense (to me) unless "Shalom Aleichem" is defined as the prototypical *greeting*, and *not* a blessing. I can't imagine why this would be so, unless the Mechaber already felt that "Shalom Aleichem" was usually said perfunctorially. And that's sad. Can anyone offer a different analysis of these various phrases? Finally, it seems to me that "perfunctory" is a good summary of why we can bring American money into a bathroom, despite the words "In God We Trust" being on them: Those words have become a mere perfunctory slogan, and are no longer a real statement of faith. But if we have downgraded "Shalom Aleichem" from blessing to greeting with that same logic, then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? Do any other poskim make this distinction (either in Hilchos Tish'a B'av, or in Hilchos Aveilus, or for that matter in Hilchos What Not To Do Before Shacharis) between a greeting and a blessing? I'd love to see it defined more clearly. (There was a point in my life when if I'd sneeze and someone would say "God bless you", my response was "Amen". But I stopped that fairly quickly as people tended to find my response quite jarring. Maybe "God bless you" is also in the category of a perfunctory greeting that should not be done on Tish'a B'av?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 06:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: <20170728200920.GA28066@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170802132730.GB27820@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:57:08AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : Maybe my memory is failing me, but I believe people were lamenting the lack : of universally recognized gedolim while Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadiah Yosef : were still alive and active... In the US, recognition of R' Henkin and RMF were near-universal. And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. In Israel, I think the most recent candidates are pre-Shas ROY and RSZA. Although ROY's pesaqim are distinctly Sepharadi, I think it's commonly accepted that Yabia Omer is one of the few sefarim written in my lifetime people will be learning centuries from now. My mention of pre-Shas points to something I think is one of the causes. The search for "daas Torah" on political and societal matters makes enemies and cynics from among those who disagree. As for RSZA, RALichtenstein notes that he posessed a gedulah different in kind, not just degree [inevitable nisqatnu hadoros], than those we've looked up to since. I highly recommend "Im Da'at Ein, Manhigut Minayin?" . In it RAL defends da'as Torah as a doctrine, but questions if anyone since RSZA has been qualified to have it. To quote my own pitgam from past posts: A gadol is tall enough to see over our fences. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 09:05:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Eleazar Hakalir Message-ID: Yesterday during the fast, I was reading about R. Eleazar Hakalir, and was struck by the fact that historians aren't sure when he lived, with some saying he lived during Mishnaic times and others saying he lived as late as the 11th century. I realize that pinpointing dates during this time period is difficult, but a 900 year swing seems very unusual. Is anyone familiar with any recent papers or articles that attempts to zero in on the real date when this poet lived? Any additional info appreciated. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 2 18:25:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha b'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170803012513.GC16841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: :> I am not sure how much he understands about Tisha B'Av, :> but he does understand how people respond to him and I didn't want to risk :> hurting his feelings. : I applaud your actions, Ilana. And if this is you worst sin (assuming it : even is one), I think you are doing OK! I am wondering whether cheerfully (rather than pro-forma, yotzei-zain, replying so as not to offend) greeting someone in this situation despite 9 beAv is an instance of huterah or dekhuyah. (Thus overanalyzing your parenthetic remark.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 4 13:52:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: ?A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha *minyanim* questioned my saying "*y'yasheir kochacha*" to one of the *olim* (FWIW, I was the *bal qorei*) and, a few min.s later, brought to the *bimah* an Artscroll-*dinim* paragraph (from the back of its 9Av *siddur*) about not greeting someone; my response, as you might guess, was that "*y'yasheir* /*yeeshar kochacha*" was not a greeting. A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "*Shalom aleichem*", like M'gilas Rus' "*H' imachem* // *y'varechcha H'*", is also a blessing, but the "problem"? comes up when it's utilized as a greeting. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 5 23:33:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:33:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and fish blood? we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking liquid and almond milk? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within > their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 04:29:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av Message-ID: <221F9E1E-C833-4DA1-83A2-577056D221BF@cox.net> R? Akiva wrote: ?.then why does it remain assur to say "Shalom Aleichem" in a bathroom? I would say the reason is that Shalom is one of God?s Names. There was once a study done on people?s responses to ?How are you?? The respondent was supposed to answer in the negative. So instead of saying ?fine, thank you,? the response would be either ?terrible,? ?awful,? ?not good,? etc. and guess what? Something like 90% would not even have realized the negative response. In other words, it is very perfunctory when someone greets someone else in a normal setting. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 09:55:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > we can bring any red blood looking liquid to the dining table > and drink it, but not not fish blood. Fish blood is Kosher > but it resembles animal or fowl blood which is not Kosher. > What is the difference between any blood looking liquid and > fish blood? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring red blood looking liquid to the dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? > we can bring any white milk looking liquid to the dining table > at which we are serving meat and drink it, but not not almond > milk. What is the difference between any white milk looking > liquid and almond milk? Maybe there's no difference, and we are *not* allowed to bring white milk looking liquid to the meaty dining table and drink it. Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to? I suspect that in both cases, you are noting the explicit prohibition against doing these things and then you are presuming that these prohibitions apply *only* to these specific foods. Then, having made that presumption, you are asking why this distinction exists. I suggest that this is an improper procedure. It would be more correct to note the prohibition about these specific things, and then to *ASK* whether the prohibition also applies to similar things. You might find that the prohibition *does* extend to other things: Example #2: Soy milk. When pareve coffee creamers first became easily available, they were all soy-based. Yet the hashgachos warned us to serve it only in the original container, precisely because of the halacha you cite. Example #1: Suppose you have a lightly-cooked steak in your plate. Some "red blood looking liquid" is leaking out of the meat onto the plate, and is absorbed into the mashed potatoes. There's no issur against those potatoes. I'm pretty sure you can even mix it up into the potatoes deliberately, or dip your bread into it and eat it. But can you pour it out of the plate, into a glass and *drink* it? I don't know. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 13:44:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Lecture from Herzog Yemei Iyun Message-ID: <25bb89bf-b093-17da-6af7-7c80276a5d1a@zahav.net.il> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXeFDdchKY One of the lectures at this year's Yemei Iyun at Herzog: Rav Bazaq (Har Etzion) and Rav Kashtiel (Yeshivat Eli) explain a story in Nach (Isha HaShunamite) each in his way. In doing so, they try to demonstrate the differences in approach between what is called "Tanach b'Gova Einayim" and "HaKav". According to a story that I read about this lecture, this was the first time, after years and years of fighting (sometimes extremely fierce fighting) between proponents of each approach, that two people got together and gave a lesson together. There have been conferences where each side explains why their approach is good and the other side is wrong, but this is the first time that two people taught together. The lectures are in conversational Hebrew. Besides the demonstration of the different approaches, the lectures themselves about the story are fantastic. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 6 22:20:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:20:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom haAtzamut. Ben On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Micha Berger wrote: > >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. > > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? > > Akiva Miller \ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 07:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> References: <8868a2ae-acda-5bdc-185e-388dee372ecd@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170807140514.GC15062@aishdas.org> : On 8/6/2017 7:10 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > R' Micha Berger wrote: : >> And RMF was capable of telling a Bnei Akiva group that within : >> their givens, they should be skipping tachanun on Yom haAtzama'ut. : > Capable, yes. But did he actually do so? On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I personally know someone told by RMF that he can say Hallel on Yom : haAtzamut. I knew he was capable of it because I know several such stories. In the future, try to remember everything I wrote over all of Avodah's 19 years' history. It would save me time. I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning something that non-intuitive. Including when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 7 18:45:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:45:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > I have indeed discussed this before, and absurdly wrote with > the assumption that people had some vague memory of learning > something that non-intuitive. I was trying to come up with a snappy comeback, but the truth is that I simply have a rotten memory. Or, perhaps, the non-intuitive stuff is lost more easily, precisely because the anti-intuitiveness makes it more difficult for the brain to reconstruct the chain of links. We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. > when RMF was asked by R Rakeffet, when his snif visited MTJ. > RARR's words (which I took as a close paraphrase), "Nu, if > it's a yomtov for you, then say Hallel; personally I don't." I wish I had been aware of these shades of gray when I was younger. Thank you for sharing. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 07:29:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:54PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We have said in the past, that in theory, when a gadol says, "This is : how it appears to me, given the Torah that I've internalized," that is : the greater Daas Torah. But in practice, others may find it difficult : to accept it, for lack of hearing the sources and logic. I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical reasons given: 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish model.) 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the community. (The usual Chassidish model.) 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from DT in general when he left Agudah.) #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and not necessarily personal ones. Here we're talking about halakhah. So, I'd like to see if we can discuss the flipside of the discussion. Rather than asking about the heteronomy of following gedolei haposqim and why today's posqim seem to be failing getting that kind of fealty from certain large segments of the masses, what about the autonomy end? We have a very literate masses. More people can hit the primary sources themselves. And for those who can't, oir lack the patience to, there are more secondary and tertiary sources available in laaz than ever before. Joys of computerized publishing, which has made producing a book cheaper than ever. In this world, how much autonomy should a sho'el assume for himself? Which questions don't need asking? I presume a wide variety of opinion; I am more interested in various rationales than in any particular answer. What about the LOR -- do you have thoughts about when he should field the question, and when he should punt to his own rav or to a gadol? And does the ease at which anyone can be reached anywhere on the globe matter? Universal education, telecom, the web's ability to provide instand "research" are all bottom-up reasons our authority is being decentralized. With little to do on those elegable to assume that authority vs those of the past. Although the ease of LH and motzi sheim ra about those rabbanim with today's tech does enter into it to, r"l. If no one can become a navi in his childhood neighborhood, today's world makes it harder and harder to leave that effect. My own feeling is that anyone of East European ancestry who was not higi'ah lehora'ah who faces a new (for them) situation and doesn't get a sense of consensus from the Chayei Adam, Qitzur, MB and AhS should be asking a she'eilah. Notice that shows my own bias against popularist guides. Unless said guide was written by or recommended by one's poseiq as a viable resource. And in terms of autonomy vs heteronomy, I would be seeking a poseiq who (1) convinces me of the soundness of his reasoning; and (2) is willing to work with my givens on things like hashkafah and beliefs about metzi'us, where there are no rules of pesaq. As in RMF's pesaq about Hallel on YhA. (Tangent: Notice that there is little connection between pesaq and hashkafah on this one. RYBS, the Zionist, adhered to a meta-halakhah in which the barriers to saying Hallel are high, and came out against. As a compromise for LORs whose mispallelim won't tolerate that, he would advise the rav to pasqen that they omit the berakhah. Whereas RMF told Zionists that leshitasam, it would be appropriate to say Hellal WITH a berakhah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 08:45:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Kashrus of Braekel Message-ID: <20170808154508.GA12433@aishdas.org> They're now importing to EY from Europe a new breed of chicken, the braekel. See http://www.baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=37&ARTICLE_ID=90778 ... Members of the Eida Charedis' Vaad Shechita, prominent rabbonim and kashrus experts gathered in the home of Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita to determine if a new chicken, imported from Europe, has a kosher status. The discussion lasted for four hours! The new bird is called Braekel, and according to HaGaon HaRav Sternbuch, the bird is not kosher. However, in Bnei Brak, HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita has ruled it is kosher. The chicken was raised in Europe in an area void of Jews and Rav Sternbuch feels it lacks the `mesora' required. Wikipedia reports that it is indeed Gallus gallus domesticus, actual chicken in scientific taxonomy. And The Brakel is not cultivated for its meat, but merely for its egg-laying qualities. The breed is capable of producing 180 to 200 white eggs a year. This isn't remotely like the leghorn, a breed of chicken that has 2 "thumbs" and 2 other toes per claw, rather than the usual for kosher birds -- 1 "thumb" and 3. And it's accepted as kosher, in fact, the source of most of our eggs here in the states. But the breakel has normal simanim. For that matter, according to some pesaqim about why we can eat turkey (the context in which the kashrus of leghorn chickens most often comes up) we even accept Meleagris gallopavo, turkey, as being within the mesorah for chickens and they aren't even in the same genus! Third wiki-note, commenting on the two subtypes of braekel chicken that have since interbread into one: In the UK, USA and Australia, however, one can still find descendants of the Kempische Brakel under its old name 'Campine'. The Campine has evolved differently from the Brakel. The most noticeable difference is the hen-feathering of the rooster and the lower weight. We in the US are treating a bird that evolved (nishtanah hateva, if you prefer) from the breakel as kosher; no one requires checking if an egg is campine or not. It's not even like the mesorah has been silent; even if each breed of G. gallus domesticus needs it's own mesorah. So, lo zakhisi lehavin RMS's reluctance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 09:27:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Decentralizing Authority In-Reply-To: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> References: <20170808142922.GB31558@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <69647634-1f0b-8686-3b9b-f1fe2958ab37@sero.name> On 08/08/17 10:29, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wouldn't call that DT at all. In my experience, DT refers to turning > to gedolei Torah for questions whose unknowns are not Torah. Typical > reasons given: > > 1- Absorbing all that Torah gives a mind a particular perspective and > ability more in line with retzon haBorei and Emes. (The usual Yeshivish > model.) > > 2- HQBH gives siyata dishmaya to the tzadiq who takes on caring for the > community. (The usual Chassidish model.) > > 3- Actually, there is no promise of doing any better than if one would > ask any other genius. BUT, with the loss of melukhah, leadership went to > Sanhedrin, and with the loss of the Sanhedrin, leadership goes to the > current rabbinate. It's an obligation in how to run a community, and > doesn't come with any special mechanism for success. (R' Dovid Cohen, > and RYBS's haTzitzi vehaChoshen, but RYBS apparently walked away from > DT in general when he left Agudah.) > > #3 also differs in only justifying seeking DT on communal questions, and > not necessarily personal ones. #4 All true knowledge is in the Torah, and finding it is a matter of making non-obvious connections. Therefore someone who has absorbed enough of it to do so can find the correct answer to anything, though he may not be able to explain how he did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 12:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hebrew manuscripts Message-ID: A database of ancient Hebrew manuscripts is now available at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLIS/en/ManuScript/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 18:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel Message-ID: . This past October (in Avodah 34:130) I mentioned a practice that I've seen growing in recent years, that of making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. I was learning about the issur of eating a large seudah on Erev Shabbos, and I came across something that seems very relevant to that practice. Form the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod Hashabbos" writes: "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 8 21:21:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:21:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142a02db-9198-65c3-9f5d-1b882fc5f525@sero.name> On 08/08/17 21:24, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of > appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, > making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." However, "to`ameha chayim zachu". Tasting a little of the Shabbos dishes, as opposed to gorging oneself on them, is very much kevod Shabbos, to increase the anticipation, like a sneak preview. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 11:58:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From the Mechaber and Mishna Brura, it it clear that the : reason for this issur is to insure that we will have an appetite with : which to eat the Shabbos Seudah. But Beur Halacha 249 "Mipnei Kavod : Hashabbos" writes: : "The Pri Megadim takes the side that the reason is NOT because of : appetite. Rather, the reason is because it cheapens Kavod Shabbos, : making Erev Shabbos equivalent to the Shabbos day." These motives have a nadka mina. If one fills up Fri afternoon on food they don't enjoy (perhaps it's healthful) or wouldn't eat in a formal or celebratory setting, one is running afoul of the SA's sevara, but not the PM's. In contrast, having significant amounts of Shabbos-appropriate food but not to the point of ruining one's appetite by the time maariv is over would be a problem according to the PM, but not the SA's sevara. Zev mentioned the case of tasting Shabbos food. The MB 250:2 uses the word "lit'om". The Machzor Vitri cites a lost Y-mi and invokes "to'ameha chaim zakhu" -- I think it's specifically te'imah. As in, less than a kezayis, no berakhah, not really eating. (Which is why I wrote last paragraph about "significant amounts".) It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. BUT.... The whole point of chulent is to have hot food in Shabbos lunch, to fulfill the obligation (SA OC 271:3) of making it the more special meal. (Rather than Fri night dinner. See Shaarei Teshuvah #1.) The AhS says one is not obligated to abstain from special Shabbos-lunch foods Fri night. But I'm talking about Thu night, altogether before Shabbos. O Seems to me that until someone finds a new "special Shabbos lunch food", Thu night chulent ought to be prohibited! Whereas one SHOULD just taste the chulent on Fri, and it is permitted (but sub-optimal) to have some with Fri night dinner. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 9 22:14:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:14:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Not just yeshiva guys. It has become a minor trendy thing for all sort of people to travel to Bnei Braq to get chulent. On 8/9/2017 8:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It has become common for yeshiva students to get "Thursday night chulent". > My son had a rebbe who made money Thu nights making chulent, potato and > Y-mi kugel, and other such Ashkenazi Shabbos foods, out of an apartment > near the Mir (Y-m). My son helped out. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 04:43:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (=?utf-8?B?157XoNeV15fXlCDXqdeR15g=?= via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> References: <20170809185844.GB27258@aishdas.org> <2b02b16c-659e-0c8e-1ef1-f31cb32674df@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: The Mishna Brura clearly states that the reason for tasting on erev shabbat is "kedei letaken". This refers to tasting during the cooking process and does not fit with the whole kugel minhag. Menucha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 11:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] publishing trends Message-ID: I'd love to hear any analysis (or guesses) as to what are the percentages of different types of sefarim (both Hebrew and English) being published in the current era, how they differ from those in the past and, most interestingly to me, what are the drivers for these trends? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 10 15:37:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:37:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Milk, Blood and look alikes Message-ID: I fear that the Halachic posture of *Can you bring a source that says we are allowed to?* although making sense from a narrow perspective, actually invites Halachic disaster, and is quite incorrect. Halacha asserts all is permitted unless it is prohibited. Here is an example in which the Shach seems to assert that Maris Ayin is limited to its narrow description and is not to be expanded according to what makes sense to us. BP, those that have been found within a Shechted cow, require Shechita once they have walked about. Before they have walked about they do not require Shechita. However, Ben PeKuAh can also be created via natural breeding which goes on forever. So we can have a large herd of BP none of which are identifiable as BP. The Mechaber Paskens without qualifying, *until they have walked about* - that the naturally born BP all require Shechita. This would appear to suggest that they require Shechita even before they have walked about. And there is good reason to understand this to be the Halacha, after all in this herd there is absolutely no way to identify them as BP whereas those found in a Shechted mother are readily identified as being BP. And I presume that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, the Shach makes it clear that the decree that requires that they be Shechted applies only after they have walked about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 11 07:15:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Summer and Travel Videos Message-ID: <1502460917652.98832@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y8drmxm3 Kosher Summer and Travel Videos As you prepare to fire up the grill for the summer or hit the road on vacation, countless Kashrut issues arise: Can I cook on a public grill in a park? Can I use a hotel room microwave? How should one pray on an airplane? These commonly asked questions and many more will be answered in our 2017 Kosher summer and travel series. Your esteemed guide through this halachic journey? It's none other than Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of OU Kosher. View the questions and answers below! Can you cook on a BBQ that has previously been used for Non-Kosher meat? Can meat and fish be cooked on the same BBQ? Can you eat cut fruit from an uncertified vendor? Can you buy coffee from a non-kosher establishment or a kiosk? May you purchase salad from an uncertified entity when traveling on the road? What products am I permitted to eat from an ice cream store? What are the Halachos in regards to prayer on an airplane? What are the Kashrut issues with airline meals? Can in-room hotel microwaves be used without kashering? Is it permissible to take antihistamines or other medication without certification? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 13 06:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] piskei rid Message-ID: <591d6b28af34484fac75d4f2918958a9@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The bar ilan database notes that its version is from Yad Ha-Rav Herzog. Does anyone have a copy that can see who authored the footnotes? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 02:06:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 07:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken Message-ID: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. See the above URL for more. See also http://tinyurl.com/yckl2bqj YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 08:23:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From > http://tinyurl.com/y7qnbz9h > Rabbi Shlomo Machpud, who heads the Yoreh Deah kashrut agency, says that > he will not affix his Kashrut seal to braekel chicken. Since when is rabbi M any sort if authority in The USA? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 11:28:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:28:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> This whole thing reminds me of the one-a-generation broohaha over leghorn chickens. Leghorns and braekels are chickens, much the way chihuahuas are dogs, despire being rather unique looking dogs -- or chickens. Like other chickens, they are Gallus gallus domesticus. Not even a remote question of problems interbreeding. Every 20 years or so someone notices that the leghorn chicken has two "thumbs" pointing back, and two toes pointing forward, rather than the usual 3-and-1 we expect for kosher birds. And yet, white leghorns make beautifully white eggs, and so it is the breed most American chicken eggs come from. Actually, both it and the braekel chicken do indeed grab the perch in a 2-and-2 grip, once comfortably on it, they go to the 3-and-1 of the rest of the species. And like the leghorn chicken, the braekel chicken is a source of eggs in the US. However, not under the name "braekel". But America's campine chicken, which has the same kind of foot, was breed from the Kempishe Breakel. The question was resolved quite a while ago, which is why we in the US don't have to chase down which breed of chicken an egg came from. So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was raised, we were about to assur, and then it was found that in much of the world zebu was already being eaten as cow. And in fact, MOST tefillin made from gasos are zebu leather! The breakel, which is a normal enough part of the general chicken gene pool to get the usual taxonomical name -- Gallus gallus domesticus. But there are two subspecies of cow: those without a hump between their shoulder are Bos taurus taurus. Those that have such a hump, eg zebu, are Bos taurus indicus. But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can interbreed and produce fertile young, in which case how did any of these questions get started? The mesorah for chickens must therefore include oddballs of the min like leghorn, braekel and campine breeds, and that for cows must include the full min, both subspecies. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 14 13:42:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrut agency will not slaughter controversial chicken In-Reply-To: <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> References: <1502722213087.36952@stevens.edu> <20170814182811.GC15375@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <692953b1-38ed-f530-7beb-1656bdc7942d@sero.name> On 14/08/17 14:28, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So maybe the question is like that of the zebu, where the question was > raised, we were about to assur, Very few were about to asser, because the view that a mesorah is needed for mammals is very much a daas yochid. > But I thought the definition of "min" for animals is that they can > interbreed and produce fertile young This is true for mammals, not necessarily for birds. I'd put a different argument: Let's suppose that it *is* a new min, for which no mesorah can exist because it didn't exist until relatively recently. For that very reason we can be 100% certain that it isn't one of the 24 listed species, and therefore doesn't need a mesorah. And if it's *not* a new min then it's a chicken, and once again kosher (except according to Anan ben David y"sh). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 06:36:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:36:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn't this an issue, since they are using less than a revi'is (approximately 3.3 oz. - minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber's question) A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi'is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi'is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi'is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m'lo lugmav (half a revi'is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 14:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170815214945.GA13601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including :> the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha :> follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a :> shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow :> their minhag. Regardless of the shei'ur, so this is perhaps tangential.... The AhS talks about the difficulty in obtaining real wine, the kashrus of "wine" from soaked raisins, and thus the schnapps option. I wonder if so many rabbeim would have insisted on making qiddush on schnapps at all if wine were an affordable option where they lived. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 15 15:24:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya Message-ID: . R' Ben Waxman asked: > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot > right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the > members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset > on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the > right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine > no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose > money? My first thought is that this is a great example of a question that should be addressed to the rav of the beit knesset. There are so many factors that need to be weighed against each other, such as how badly the shul needs the money, and how many hurt feelings will be created by giving the wrong answer. As regards the comment "a sale is a sale" -- I'm not so sure. Sounds like a "davar shelo ba laolam" to me. Especially since we are considering the real possibility that a kohen guest might show up, rendering the auction questionable. Just my two grush. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 02:54:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Use of Stone Keilim During Bayis Sheini Message-ID: <20170816095450.GA3826@aishdas.org> See http://www.timesofisrael.com/2000-year-old-stone-workshop-discovered-near-where-jesus-turned-water-into-wine or http://j.mp/2v1gxan The Times of Israel By Amanda Borschel-Dan August 10, 2017, 11:51 am 2,000-year-old stone workshop discovered near where Jesus turned water into Only four Second Temple stoneware production centers have been unearthed in Israel Because it was immune to ritual impurity, the use of stoneware was rife among Jews during the Roman era ... A large 2,000-year-old Second Temple period chalkstone quarry and workshop was discovered at Reina in lower Galilee by a team of archaeologists headed by Dr. Yonatan Adler... A manmade chalkstone quarry cave was recently discovered between between Nazareth and the village of Kana. What is unique in this excavation is the additional find of a stoneware workshop -- one of only four in Israel. Although pottery was also in use during this period, archaeological digs around the region point to an uptick in stoneware during the Second Temple period -- likely for ritual purity reasons, as attested in the Talmud. "In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee also used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone," said Adler. ... "According to ancient Jewish ritual law, vessels made of pottery are easily made impure and must be broken. Stone, on the other hand, was thought to be a material which can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce some of their everyday tableware from stone," he said. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 04:45:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:45:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh Message-ID: . At first, I was going to pose these nitpicky questions on our Mesorah list. But then I found some answers, and I decided to share my journey with the whole chevra. If it doesn't put you to sleep from boredom, please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Shmos 1:10 - Paro starts panicking over the Jewish Problem. First, they're multiplying, and then, "ki sikrena milchama..." 1. What is the root of Sikrena? Kuf resh aleph, or kuf resh heh? 2a. If it is kuf resh heh - "if war happens" - then what is the aleph for? Is this a kri/ksiv situation? Does anyone explicitly refer to it as a kri/ksiv? 2b. If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? Why does every single translation and peirush render it as "if war occurs", or similar? Or do you know of any exceptions that I couldn't find? 3. What form is this word? My guess is that it is Kal, future, 3rd person feminine plural: "They(f) will...". That fits well with "proclaim", if "they(f)" refers to the attacking nations. But if the root is kuf resh heh, I don't know why the plural would be used. Is "milchama" some sort of plural or collective noun? Other relevant information: RSR Hirsch says that "sikrena" is a plural form, and therefore "milchama" is probably not the subject but the object. for the word's meaning, he refers us to Yeshaya 41:22, where this same word occurs. But as I see it, these words are not spelled the same: Where Shemos spells it with an aleph, Yeshaya has a yud. (I suppose Rav Hirsch considers this difference insignificant, but I'm not knowledgable enough to understand why.) I did find one lone voice who says that the root of "sikrena" is "read/call" and not "happen/occur". Namely, Mandelkern's Concordance. Yeshaya 41:22 appears on 1047d, in the root kuf-resh-heh. But he places our pasuk, Shemos 1:10, on 1043c, in the root kuf-resh-aleph. Another data point from Mandelkern: His opinion is that "sikrena" in Shemos 1:10 is a third-person plural verb. This is different from the second-person plural verb, which is spelled exactly the same, and appears in Rus 1:20 and 1:21, and in the Concordance on 1042a. I suspect that Mandelkern would endorse "*they* will proclaim war" as a correct translation. Finally, I tried a non-Jewish website devoted to translation issues. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7122.htm is based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, and other similar sources. I probably could have gotten the same information from Mandelkern, but seeing their English translation on-screen made these examples jump out at me: Bereshis 42:4 - [Yaakov] said, "Lest disaster *happen* [to Binyamin]." Bereshis 49:1 - Yaakov said, "... I will tell you what will *happen* to you at the end of days." Vayikra 10:19 - Aharon told Moshe, "... such has *happened* to me..." Devarim 22:6 - When you *happen* upon a bird's nest... In all of the above, the Torah's word is spelled with a kuf-resh-ALEPH root. I find myself forced to concede that there is strong evidence (dare I call it "proof"?) that in addition to the usual meanings "read" and "call", kuf-resh-aleph can also mean "happen". Having said that, I was tempted to take this even farther. That page on BibleHub brings a lot examples where they translate kuf-resh-aleph as "meet". At first glance, I did not take it seriously; I felt that our common translation as "call" was more appropriate. For example, Shemos 5:3. where Moshe and Aharon tell Paro, "The God of the Hebrews nikra to us, so let us go for three days..." In my mind, this meant "Hashem called to us", and I rejected BibleHub's translation of "... has met with us." But then I read ("happened upon"? pun intended!) ArtScroll's translation, which is "...happened upon us." I was surprised by this, but I was even more surprised when I saw RSR Hirsch on this pasuk, where he tells us to look at Shemos 3:18, where he shows that these two roots (kuf resh aleph and kuf resh heh) are indeed similar. And so I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to translate Shemos 1:10 as "when a war happens". Does all this teach us anything about the small aleph in Vayikra 1:1? I leave that as an exercize for the reader. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 10:41:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kuf-resh-aleph versus kuf-resh-heh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/17 07:45, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > If it is kuf resh aleph, then why is it that I can't find anyone (Jewish > or not) who translates it as "if they proclaim war"? I don't think "proclaiming war" is something that can even happen in Hebrew. One can call *for* war, but the lamed is necessary. I can't think of any direct examples right now, but consider the parallel "vekarasa eleha leshalom". On the other hand we do have "ukrasem deror". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:25:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected cohen guest is the only option. If it is the aliyah itself which is sold then the cohen should be able to claim the shul had no right to sell it, and the choshen mishpat shailah is whether the shul or the buyer takes the loss. Obviously just my opinion not meant to second guess the mara d'atra. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning, would his right to the first aliya (the right not be embarrassed) over ride the sale? I would imagine no, a sale is a sale. Plus, why should the beit knesset lose money? > > If the cohen says "I am willing to pay whatever the Yisrael paid" would he then have the right to claim the aliya? > > If it matters, the beit knesset is Yeminite. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 14:34:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:18 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush Shabbos Morning In-Reply-To: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> References: <1502804174917.70895@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I wonder if everyone agrees with the Machstzis Hashekel, i.e., would everyone agree that if you hold like the Taz the you can make kiddush on it? I was startled by the conclusion until I realized that "their minhag" refers to their own minhag, the the minhag of the Rebbes mentioned in the previous sentence. Still odd though, surely this is a psak halacha not a minhag. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. I often see people make Kiddush Shabbos day on a small shot glass of schnapps. Isn?t this an issue, since they are using less than a revi?is (approximately 3.3 oz. ? minimum amount for Kiddush)? (Subscriber?s question) > A. The Taz (OC 210:1) writes that if one drinks an entire shot glass of schnapps in one sip, they are required to recite a bracha achrona (Borei Nifashos). Although on other beverages one only recites a bracha achrona if one drinks a full revi?is, Taz maintains that a shot glass of schnapps is equivalent to a revi?is of other drinks. This is because schnapps is strong and most people are unable to drink more than this amount in one sip. The Machtzis HaShekel (272:6) points out that following the logic of the Taz, one should be permitted to recite Kiddush Shabbos day on a shot glass of schnapps. > > Most poskim disagree with the Taz. The Magen Avrohom (190:4), Chayei Adam (6:18), Mishnah Berurah (190:14), Aruch Hashulchan (483:3) all require a revi?is of schnapps for Kiddush. However, if one cannot by themselves drink a m?lo lugmav (half a revi?is, the mandatory minimum) of schnapps, they may share with others. > > Piskei Teshuvos (289:note 88) lists many Chasidishe Rebbes (including the Chozeh from Lublin and the Yid HaKodesh) who held that the halacha follows the Taz. They insisted on making Kiddush Shabbos morning on a shot glass of schnapps to emphasize this point. Everyone should follow their minhag. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 16 15:22:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Kiddush Shabbos Morning Message-ID: <1502922161954.91323@stevens.edu> Please see the article sent to me by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky that I have posted at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 04:55:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate Message-ID: A work around for agunot wanting to have kids: Rav Yitzhaq Yosef* ruled that an IVF child isn't a mamzer in a case of a married woman having her egg fertilized with the sperm of a man who who isn't her husband. Now an MK wants to use this psak to enable agunot to conceive via IVF and her kids won't have mamzerut problems (and have the treatment paid for by the state). * Yes other rabbis have given this ruling but when the Chief Rabbi gives a psak it gives a stronger basis for a knesset member to propose a law. See the article for more details (Hebrew): http://bit.ly/2uOmI6x I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A single woman is allowed to get IVF. Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 09:27:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen demanding a sold aliya In-Reply-To: <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> References: <13cdbbb5-925d-d2fc-dd6b-7673ee299123@zahav.net.il> <8B127514-FF10-4B2B-9A19-06B2FB8AE4A0@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170818162719.GF5755@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:25:19PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : From where does the shul get the right to sell the aliyah to a non-cohen : in the first place. I would assume that what has actually been sold is : the right to choose who gets the aliyah, and in this case the unexpected : cohen guest is the only option... While I agree with that conclusion, the answer to your opening question was in RBW's post: :> My Friday night beit knesset sells the Shabbat morning aliyot right :> after kabbalat Shabbat. In this beit knesset, none of the members are :> kohenim. Were a cohen to come to the beit knesset on Shabbat morning... They sold the aliyah on the presumption that, as usual. And in fact, this "chazaqah" is so solid, RBS asked this eventually as a hypothetical; the wording he thought of was "were ... to come" not "when ... does come". Perhaps there was originally an al-tenai that simply people no longer remember. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:46:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tisha B'Av, Greetings - Mazel Tov on Tisha B'Av In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818174604.GH5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:52:59PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A community member at one of the JEC (Elizabeth, NJ, USA) 9Av Mincha : minyanim questioned my saying "y'yasheir kochacha" to one of the olim ... : A quick comment on the apparently blessing vs. greeting (i.e. either/or) : dichotomy quoted by RDrYL: "Shalom aleichem", like M'gilas Rus' "H' : imachem // y'varechcha H'", is also a blessing, but the "problem" comes : up when it's utilized as a greeting. My rule: If said as a social pleasantry, or as a mindless playback of a recording your parents / society taught you, it's a greeting. But if you care more about whether the RBSO heard you than the person you're saying it about, it's a berakhah. And usually it's somewhere between those poles. With a skew toward the greeing end. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 10:02:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:02:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A : single woman is allowed to get IVF. I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei mi shelo nivra". But... This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless worse than never existing at all? (I adapted that line from arguments about aborting a fetus that tests positive for Downs. How many people with Downs hate their life so much that they regret existing?) : Feminists of course could object that this is institutionalizing agunot. Marriage as described in Bereishis 1, perhaps. "Peru urevu umil'u es ha'aetz". But the intimacy of Bereishis 2 is not adressed "... al kein ya'azov ish es aviv ve'es imo, vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu lebasar echad". My version of "the talk" with my boys started with these two pesuqim. Explaining that relations are to serve these two functions. And also, while birth control can address one of these two, extramarital relations outside of "vedavaq be'isho" translate into exercises in weakening that bond, that gift HQBH gave us. (Adding now, as this bit would go over their heads: to approximate Adam Qadmon as humanity is described before Adam and Chavah are made from one into two.) And then, after establishing theological context, the talk continued on the usual biological and psychological planes. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 11:27:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses in Judaism Message-ID: R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/ He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American Eclipse of 2017: Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 18 14:10:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: . On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients. I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. > ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient > with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the > well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov > yisroel", just like many people today. And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then what did they do wrong? The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good description of it, I'd appreciate it.) The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food that even went by another name. And the very first time that they asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained. In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product. Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I wrote here 15 years ago: (http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03) > Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free > breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored > liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I > understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that > assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that > one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff, > and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap > orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice, > isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 11:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:29:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] IVF and the Rabbinate In-Reply-To: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> References: <20170818170208.GG5755@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <529972d5-f946-74d5-e97e-26fbf8cbced3@starways.net> On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural > : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any > : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a > : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A > : single woman is allowed to get IVF. > > I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei > mi shelo nivra". But... I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view. > This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless > worse than never existing at all? Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 17:30:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:30:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, Cheilev and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. Is this correct? Can anyone offer some illumination? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 21:43:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 00:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4577e69b-191e-24b3-90cc-757555b83cd6@sero.name> On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> Not a coffee shop. They bought milk from a grocery, ... > Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I > don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks. It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at their lodgings. Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream? A grocery. >> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient >> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the >> well-known reasons. In other words they "didn't keep cholov >> yisroel", just like many people today. > And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then > what did they do wrong? This is precisely the AhS's point. He strongly rejects the view of those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens when one does so. > > The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are > "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant". > (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good > description of it, I'd appreciate it.) It's schmant in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet cream for coffee. Cf smetana, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour cream is zoyer shmetene. > The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to > what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food technology made everything complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel. (This is why the term "cholov stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used. RMF rejects the idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils its requirements.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 07:17:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: ' R' Zev Sero wrote: > No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type > of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in > Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least > one could before modern food technology made everything > complicated). There is no halachic difference, according to > *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half, > etc. Either one can buy them all, or one can not. Summary: I concede. Longer version: I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as a resident of the 5700s. I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned about such things. I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the, there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly, there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them. There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in 1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the drivers for this change. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 12:04:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:04:07 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story Message-ID: <201708201904.v7KJ47OS022554@hsdm.com> >And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") . From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 19 22:11:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 01:11:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. > So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, > Cheilev > and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly > think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares. My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev. I don't know whether deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something that is identical to chelev so there is no question. (The difference may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone will think it's chelev? Obviously we don't worry about that because an observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to that conclusion?) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 20 08:37:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk Message-ID: . Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, but we don't hold like him. In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking, eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di" come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds. Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a - <<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds, who don't have mother's milk. >>> Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says it's d'rabanan. We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav", WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di" would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we learn from the word "imo"? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 06:32:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:32:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse Message-ID: <1503322352892.87303@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said? A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 15:09:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis Message-ID: . Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads: > Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so > which bracha should be said? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for > which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the > acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and > great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. > It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. > Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe- > inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? > > Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and > Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh > Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which > are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states > that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's > sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many > commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. > As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses > are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation. > > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of anyone else who comments on this question? Thanks! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 16:06:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses : > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah : > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a). : : Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of : anyone else who comments on this question? The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses. The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human sin. Wholesale, not retail. The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer to the question in his words. The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who continue ignoring such signs. In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence". At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who aren't religiously moved by it. Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally used language of Wisdom and Intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 21 17:07:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> References: <20170821230634.GA13599@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b@sero.name> > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer > to the question in his words. That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's servant, the moon. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 04:11:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richard Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? Message-ID: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning? Something doesn?t add up. Every 28 years around April 8th, we recite the birkat hachama (last time, April 8th 2009, next time, April 8th 20037). Every month we recite the blessing over the moon. And as I learned, the ?oseh ma?aseh b?reshis? is over lightening but not over thunder and volcanoes. For thunder and volcanoes I thought we say ?shekocho g?vuroso malei olam.? Regarding an eclipse as an incredible and awe inspiring event, so is being in the presence of a child being born or in the presence of a person having being declared dead, resuscitated back to life. Is there a b?rocho for that? > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 07:16:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170822141651.LBEF22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> I heard a very interesting shiur at yutorah. Everything below was mentioned, plus one other thing: a great explanation of a gemara (or another Chazal) that says something like: "X" comes into the world (X might have been eclipses, or, if not, something related in some way) with four reasons: - not appropriately euglogizing an av beis din - (I can't remember) - homosexuality - the death of two brothers at once (or in battle) (He started the connection my explaining the ma'aseh of the moon's complaint against H' at creation . . . ) Here's the problem with my post: - I got to it via the "featured shiruim" on my YUTorah phone app -- and it's not there now. I went to the desktop site, and I can't seem to find it - I don't remember who it was (except that the rav who gave it over had a middle or eastern European accent) (My excuse: I went to western South Carolina to see the eclipse. The 8 hour drive home turned into almost 13 hours because of traffic, and I drove alone. I heard a lot of shiurim and my mind is pretty fuzzy . . . ) FWIW, -- Sholom At 05:40 AM 8/22/2017, via Avodah wrote: >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:07:30 -0400 >From: Zev Sero via Avodah >To: Avodah >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis >Message-ID: <2f63a618-b62b-b14f-5218-785c1c65906b at sero.name> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a > > lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't > see an answer > > to the question in his words. > >That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara. The Aruch Laner points >out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that >eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or >moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people. This means >that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens >is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or >mercy. E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, >even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise >and predictable regularity! So also a solar eclipse marks a time when >Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible. > >This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural >phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but >Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind >Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function. > >This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry >at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them >and let them sit in the dark. Who is the servant here? And why didn't >they have the king simply order the light extinguished? Why have it >removed from before them? This shows that they were aware that the sun >is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's >servant, the moon. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 17:47:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:47:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness Message-ID: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> There was a discussion on Areivim about a particular person who was accused of committing a particularly evil crime. Someone posted, among other comments, ?I will add that the "rabbi" who committed these horrific acts is objectively G-dless. Apikores is too mild a term for him.? My response to this fits more for Avodah than Areivim: I know this man and most of the other players in this story. And while I haven?t interviewed him recently to test R?n TK?s assertion, it is my opinion that as reprehensible as these events are, it doesn?t mean that the person who committed them is Godless. Is any sinner Godless? More likely, a sinner like this carries around a huge measure of denial and/or conflict. But that doesn?t make him or her Godless. The Gemara says, in fact, that some sinners ? during the moment they?re sinning(!) are close to Hashem (Berachos 63a). I?ll elaborate: In truth, the argument can be made that any time a person sins he or she is Godless. Tomer Devorah in the first perek makes the contrapositive point ? that Shuras HaDin would dictate that Hashem remove himself from a person at the time of his sin, resulting in the sinner?s instant death. His response to that is that Hashem?s mercy is what keeps the person alive ? Hashem does not remove himself from the person, and keeps sustaining him or her even while he or she is sinning with the very power invested by Hashem in them that enables them to sin. But probably most times well-meaning people sin, their sin comes from one of the following three: ignorance, negligence, or lust. Ignorance: Not knowing or remembering something is forbidden. Negligence: Not caring enough to take care not to inadvertently sin. Lust: Being blinded to the evil that one is doing because of the strong desire to benefit from it. In all those cases, the person who is sinning is not thinking about Hashem. He?s ? in your terms ? ?objectively Godless.? But can he really be called that? Let?s talk about two extremes: The person who walks in front of another person who is saying Shemoneh Esrei (relatively minor), vs. the person who is not shomer negiah (relatively major). In both those cases it?s not that the person is not thinking about Hashem (which he admittedly is not), but that the person is not thinking about sin. Or, more succinctly, the person is just not thinking. Not Godless, but thought-less. And that can sum up all of the three categories ? ignorance, negligence, and lust cause people to sin by not thinking. So what happens when a person is a thinker? There are two possibilities. The person can be like Nimrod, "???? ????? ??????? ????? ??" ? he knows Hashem and doesn?t listen to him, although he recognized Hashem?s existence. That?s a plain old Rasha. But he?s not Godless ? ???? ?????. The second possibility is that that person does think about Hashem. He does think about his actions. He does know how bad it is what he?s doing. In other areas, not his weakness, he does keep to Hashem?s will. He is ???? ????? but he?s not ?????? ????? ??. Such a person, I think, is incredibly conflicted. He knows about Hashem and he?s rebelling against him on the one hand, while trying to obey him on the other. That person might be evil, might be scum of the earth, but he?s not Godless. On the contrary. And although we have to condemn such a person and his horrible actions, and we don?t envy his punishment in the World to Come, we might also be a little jealous of his relationship with Hashem. This may well be the reason the Gemara tells us that a person who says Lashon Hara about a talmid chacham falls in Gehennom, since the talmid chacham definitely did Teshuvah (Berachos 19a). How do we know he definitely did teshuvah? Because a talmid chacham, by definition, is a thinker. He didn?t indulge in non-thinking ? that?s not in his nature. And even if he had a moment of weakness and did something wrong, he certainly rebounded and regretted it the next day. (Contrast the talmid chacham with the non-thinker of before ? he just continues blissfully on with his life not realizing or caring that he sinned. That?s why we are not required to presume that he did Teshuvah.) A Godless person, properly defined, is one who denies Hashem?s existence completely. We have no basis, in this case or in many others, to assert that those are the circumstances we?re dealing with. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 23:43:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 06:43:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? On the topic Kvct Joel Rich Sent from my iPhone THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 22 21:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:06 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya Message-ID: It seems we agree that there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats. So there you are, eating what looks for all intents and purposes, to be Cheilev Yet Chazal were not Gozer to prohibit this due to Maris Ayin. Is the physical difference between Cheilev and Shuman more than the difference between fish blood and animal blood? Would there be no confusion between red coloured liquids, like wine and animal blood? There is no MA on Ben PeKuAh that is salvaged as a non-fully-gestated, no matter how long it lives and no matter how much it looks smells tastes and feels like an ordinary beast. Why is that so? Proposing that - IT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO CHEILEV SO THERE IS NO QUESTION - seems a little fantastic And indeed we should ask - why don't we worry that onlookers will think that beef Shuman is Cheilev? Is it OBVIOUS that there is no reason to suspect it is Cheilev, so why jump to that conclusion? I do not think so. I suspect that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies is as a product similar to the prohibited product. Perhaps like the position that Min BeMino is determined by name not by taste, Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 04:37:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Since when? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 23 07:09:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya In-Reply-To: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> References: <37b37af1-b946-c18f-79f9-79998354db84@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170823140919.GB32207@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:28AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 23/08/17 00:28, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: :> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat : Since when? Tangent: One of my pet peeves about Brisker derekh is how "chalos sheim" often is just begging the question. X needs a P, or else it doesn't really have the chalos sheim X. It's an empty statement, just saying that P is needed because the category needs P. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:13:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:13:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tax Evasion and Esrog purchasing In-Reply-To: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> References: <20170825183024.GA6689@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170825191326.GA15871@aishdas.org> Back in Sep 2014 Every year I mention the problem of buying an esrog from someone who > offers a better price if you pay in cash. Last year I was able to shift > from "li nir'eh it's a problem". RHSchachter reports that according to > RJBSoloveitchik, helping the seller evade taxes in this way is lifnei iver > (deOraisa, not "just" the derabbanan of mesayeia) and THE ESROG IS PASUL. They just put R' Asher Weiss's teshuvah on this subject up at : Tvunah in English Question: I recently went to a store and was told if a pay in cash then i would not need to pay taxes. If it is obvious that by me paying in taxes the store owner would not pay the proper tax on this sale to the government, am I allowed to do such a purchase or there is a problem of [lifnei iveir lo sisein mikhshol]. Answer: This would not seem to be the actual prohibition of Lifnei Iver as cash payment is inherently permissible and he can and may still pay taxes. There are a number of reasons a person would prefer cash payments, aside from tax evasion. At the same time, with regards to taxes we should generally assume Dina Demalchusa Dina and not encourage or promote tax evasion. It would seem RAW agrees on the halakhah, but disagrees that you should be chosheish that the preference for cash is due to tax evasion. Although in the first sentence the sho'el says the salesman told him so outright!? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 25 12:29:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:29:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Eilu va'Eilu Message-ID: <20170825192948.GA17720@aishdas.org> Because how can I /not/ share something on eilu va'eilu? -micha ----- Forwarded message from torahweb at torahweb.org ----- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:31:45 -0400 From: torahweb at torahweb.org Subject: updates to Rav Schachter's dvar Torah To: weeklydt at torahweb.org TorahWeb EILU V'EILU Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim -- both opinions are the words of the Living G-d." although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she'ha'Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She'b'al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah. The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether -- according to their perspective -- the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim." This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions imply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v'eilu. Even when we do apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" it does not mean that halacha l'ma'aseh one has the right to follow either opinion. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v'eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, "Beis Shamai b'makom Beis Hille eina Mishna", i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don't even consider the views of Beis Shamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d'hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b'chutz la'aretzm, even when dealing with a d'oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l'hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l'ma'aseh. (See my sefer, B'Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.) Likewise the poskim assume that when you have a shitah y'chida'ah, a lone opinion among poskim not shared by others, this view also does not constitute a slight safeik. The Beis Shmuel (Shulchan Aruch, Even HoEzer siman 90, s'if kattan 6) thinks that even if the Rambam agrees with the Ri Migash on an position not agreed upon by other poskim, this view should be totally ignored, since the Rambam was so taken by the genius of the Ri Migash (his father's rebbe), and would naturally be inclined to accept his opinion without even thinking twice (even though in several instances the Rambam does reject his opinion), this psak would be considered a shitah y'chida'ah and should be totally ignored. It was recently reported that a certain "beis din" permitted a married woman to remarry without a get, because it was ascertained that her husband was not Sabbath observant at the time he married her, and the halacha considers one who is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia to be like a non-Jew. And, they reasoned, we all know that if a non-Jew marries a Jewish woman the marriage does not take effect. This ruling is absolutely scandalous. First of all, the consensus of recent poskim has been that the concept of mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia doesn't apply today since so many Jews are not shomer Shabbos and the term "b'farhesia" has the connotation that this individual is breaking the discipline in the community (Chazon Ish and Binyan Tzion.) The members of this "beis din" would most certainly have been the first to say that such a Jew would not cause wine he touched to become prohibited because he is not considered to be like a non-Jew. More importantly, the view that a Jew who is treated as a non-Jew because he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia can't effectively marry a Jewish woman is totally ignored, because it is against an explicit gemara (Yevamos 47b) that states that even if a Jew converts to another religion and marries a Jewish woman the marriage does in fact take effect. We can't apply the concept of eilu v'eilu to this view; it is simply incorrect. Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v'eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v'eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does notmean that it has ramifications halacha l'ma'aseh. There are rules and regulations regarding psak halacha; this discipline is not hefker (is not a free for all.) The parsha tells us that the halachic positions of the Beis Din Hagadol are binding on all Jews. The Sanhedrin was a group of Torah scholars who were clearly head and shoulders above all of their contemporaries. They were the gedolei hador (the Torah giants of their generation), and the gedolei hador have the status of rabo muvhak for their entire generation, even for those who never even met them (see Tosafos on Berachos 31b and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 244:10.) The halachic positions of one's rebbe muvhak are binding on him, and the halachic views of the gedolei hador (who are clearly head and shoulders above the other Torah scholars of their generation) may not be ignored. None of the members of the aforementioned "beis din" are recognized by anyone as belonging to the category of gedolei hador, and even if it had been a case where we would apply eilu v'eilu, since the gedolei hador have unanimously rejected it for generations, no one today who is not in the category of gedolei hador has the right to go against this rejection! Rabbinic leaders throughout the generations are always concerned with the plight of agunos, but coming up with non-halachic solutions is not the Orthodox way. The Talmud Yerushalmi seems to hold that the concept of pikuach nefesh doesn't only apply when one's life is in danger, but also if one's life will be made extremely miserable this too falls under the category of pikuach nefesh, which allows one to violate Torah laws. The Yerushalmi (quoted by Rav Yosef Engle in Teshuvas Aguna) says that we would have allowed every agunah to violate the prohibition of adultery if not for the fact that we are dealing with gilui arayos (forbidden marriages) where the halacha does not permit one to violate the mitzvah even in a case of literal pikuach nefesh -- even to save one's life. The aforementioned "beis din" is doing a disservice to the Orthodox Jewish community at large, and specifically to these poor agunos, by misleading them with absolutely scandalously fallacious piskei halacha. Let the public beware! One must be of the caliber of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski in his generation or Rav Moshe Feinstein in the past generation in order to determine in a given case if the halacha permits a woman to get remarried without a get. POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the aforementioned "beis din", also see important letter from Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz regarding the "International Beit Din" . Copyright (c) 2017 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 09:42:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Poem For Elul Message-ID: <20170827164248.GA14698@aishdas.org> Saw on Facebook and wanted to share. I am not sure if R Bin Goldman intended the title to be "a poem for elul" (sic) and the first line read (in Hebrew, my transliteration) "Lekha Amar Libi" or if he wrote a poem titled "Lekha Amar Libi, which he introduced as a poem for Elul. I am presenting it as if the latter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Lekha Amar Libi [R'] Bin Goldman My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. My daughter loves to disappear. With little hands over big, bright eyes she announces, "You can't see me!" Her giggles float around me like the bubbles we love to blow together. I light up when I watch her, but she can't tell. She'll never see me from her darkness standing there, adoring her. Sometimes when it's dark for me, I wonder: can God still see me or have I disappeared? If only I could see that it's me who's hiding. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:18:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach Message-ID: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)? If not, where is its force grounded? Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own law as long as it doesn?t contradict the seven? Who would be eligible to be on a Bnai Noach court and how much interpretive independence would they have? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 26 11:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:19:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Moshe and aharon Message-ID: <846178C1-4E50-4DC0-9C2B-7D9B22F0E745@sibson.com> Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b ) two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to debate] Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse Kt Joel richTHIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 27 18:53:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:10 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... Message-ID: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin presented in an earlier message. The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to those cases where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product. Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting - please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when? Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera, see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its - Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues] R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. Would you please explain how and/or why? = = = = = = Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are 3 issues that require clarification: 1. Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protests? Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: 1. Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. 2. Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:34:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8326ab8f-6f6d-4868-0fd3-9a28f508abd0@sero.name> On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev. > Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the important) distinction. I don't know how similar they look on the surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with different names even in English. > Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat Once again, I object. Who says so? > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be > performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to > the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 07:20:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828142031.GA10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin : presented in an earlier message. : The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters. Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis. As in: : R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the : application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct. : Would you please explain how and/or why? This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an observer. See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur, not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half of the label on the "almond milk". But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat? Tangent: : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk... WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats and the milk were cooked together. As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar. After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to wait to eat. The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's. (My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?) Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs. But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked them together? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 06:06:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (MorrisIsaacson via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog Message-ID: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) Thank you, Moshe Isaacson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:20:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the : sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk : that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that : milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us : that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would : have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would : have been protected from those other ingredients... This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out something else... According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is that of kosher species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of the milking. Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched by a Yisrael. Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly, neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy more than chazal's taqanah. For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's ruling exempting powdered milk. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent > adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still > applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched > by a Yisrael. > > Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 10:52:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa : lechumra. Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines right above your comment. (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about without the gezeira. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 08:52:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828155218.GC10616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote: : Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated : with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.) I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't resplond when you asked on another forum.) Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid. The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and Tzefaniah 2:14. But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol to it. The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll", because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French. Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would share that metaphor. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the > :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it. > > : And RMF agrees. He points out that if there were an actual cheshash > : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa > : lechumra. > Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal > visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing > "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it. > So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines > right above your comment. He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah. And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5fe6203e-5ca3-2df7-9dc4-ab23193ca9e8@sero.name> On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote: > (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF > held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus > inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.) IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping kashrus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:18:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:18:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have : done. I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 12:50:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> References: <20170828152012.GB10616@aishdas.org> <7d422a19-d87f-9e67-f6e0-b2e3bde13e58@sero.name> <20170828175237.GA31841@aishdas.org> <98fdc1af-43dd-e3eb-809f-b34900997209@sero.name> <20170828191856.GD31841@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7a7271fd-d51c-6efc-2eb8-8d88dc02bf52@sero.name> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose > : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need > : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have > : done. > > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further supervision is needed. I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care about reshus. What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his employees or guests. The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours from the bottle into his cup. And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. So what makes it CY? This can be further split into two scenarios: (1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision. It was CY lim'hadrin from the moment of milking until this nochri bought it. But now it isn't. (2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at one point it was already in reshus yisroel. In other words, there was more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from the bottle. Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus nochri? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 15:07:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? In-Reply-To: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> References: <50F63B28-CD0D-48C3-8E9C-A55E55FD9006@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170828220709.GH31841@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the : bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') : is recited, such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, : an eclipse is not included in this list... The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of an eclipse is for others, not Jews. BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah? Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said? I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im (mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see Creation in it but can't. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 13:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170828202847.GG31841@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature : calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow : and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as : Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. ... : But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar : and non-Tzon, this non-animal? : Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence : my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You went over my head. I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73. So what are you asking? ... : Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil, : the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even : if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur : will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh? Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and CAN be chal on it. As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type fatty deposits? Where this question is coming from: My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of a chayah is permissible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 17:25:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:25:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances Message-ID: Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis. He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined by the names we use to identify things. But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as far as I can tell, has not been addressed. Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the facts of the Halacha. I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82. I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by. We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino, is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste? Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop - stop trying to force the round peg. I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined. = = = = = Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked with milk from the Pesikta he quotes. Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, it must still be Halachically coherent. Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats. - - - - - Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained why there is no MA to cook these with dairy. He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different names even in English. Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are. Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi. Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim, take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is explaining. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:10:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:10:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? Message-ID: The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted. What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this non-animal? Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah? The answer is Yes and also No There is an Issur to eat Neveila but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat - RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2 Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah. Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 18:29:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by the Gemara, Chullin 58a. A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar, a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo. After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before being incubated] from unfertilised eggs. Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif]. Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it. What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision must be made, which is ZVZGo. BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa. Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher chickens when they hatch. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 16:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh Message-ID: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds." Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 28 19:54:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which conclusions may be drawn. > Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when > HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until > they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection > and not let Moshe go down with the second set? I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was permitted to them. But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 05:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:48:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote: > I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate > into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin? > > For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company > kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really > a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left > unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some? I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it (and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead) However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers. They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish. Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container with CS. How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)? (they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 08:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ab46d6f-e25f-3389-5dea-28aabefa26c1@sero.name> On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they > are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were > growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the > eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset] Then why not say the same of the hen's meat? It too was mostly grown before it became a tereifah! -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 12:52:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb`al peh In-Reply-To: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> References: <1adf7bf0-b697-4d38-f915-4fcf983d14ec@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170829195223.GA27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, : assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so? : Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies as : Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in : Hebrew. TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error tragic; I wonder if it's common. I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers: Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds... until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud. Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad. The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados". The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 29 13:32:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170829203231.GB27184@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold : that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the : status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan : according to the Rambam). The avos were Bnei Noach, and their : keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra. Otherwise we'd have the : absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all : kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his : descendants! Not to mention all benei Racheil. Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before we were true Benei Yisrael. Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a "nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah. Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other. Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as an issur chamur. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 30 12:48:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:48:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments Message-ID: A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933: As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . (Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues) We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address. It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure way of life that would bring us to God's light. The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps. Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split. A couple of notes: 1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause. 2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other personal sin), he had this in mind. 3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely within the Clal doing the sin. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 06:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 07:44:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it > sounds like "original sin." YL And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:35:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <1504187724021.99346@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170831233516.GB22179@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me :> it sounds like "original sin." YL : : Did you think only Xians beleived : in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our : view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the : guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"... The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach. Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos, all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin. Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 12:50:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America Message-ID: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus see there for more background: On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land... On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein... REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US. Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6: Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them, they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness, not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished, as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia. Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain, without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with our very eyes ... This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel] was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150 years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather, that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times. (Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America being a "medinah shel chessed.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:43:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have several comments. The OU writes: > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > the home for Shabbos. Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs of the home." In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting the lights is part of that! The OU continues: > The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. > Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to > sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama), > women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to > me it sounds like "original sin." I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I think that's all the Tur is saying. It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive from the same event. Finally, the OU writes: > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > the wicks will easily catch fire. It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be *more* difficult to light later on. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 18:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:57:21 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh Message-ID: NEVEILAH Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the prohibition to eat Neveilah It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2 However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah. I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by Halacha so why is it Assur to eat it? MARIS AYIN The following are universally accepted 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha and even Minhag 2] AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta] 3] AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA? I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal. and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats, even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA. The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah - Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not. Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has no direct Halachic component to it Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a reflection of Halacha. Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden. Please provide some sources. As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is also predicated upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim. As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish? ISSUR BBCh I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor - only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook. The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out - the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:06:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:06:02 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Zeh VeZeh Gorem Message-ID: We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a little bit will do] That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However, for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen. The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 19:00:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nature of torah sheb'al peh Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression > that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may > disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no > one argues otherwise. But while Gemara is encompassed within > the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from > Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions > made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that > seem problematic to our minds." > > Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, > assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not > so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies > as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent > in Hebrew. I could respond in any of several ways. Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial. I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash, until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that Nach is also included.) Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural sources, and with hardly any logical arguments. Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin: What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his stereotypes about mishnayos.) This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion, and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our practice is XYZ. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 22:23:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? Ben On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system > of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to > see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or > murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow > one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and > speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 06:49:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org>, <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we continue to remember Amalek. Kvct Joel rich > On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? > > Ben > >> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system >> of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to >> see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or >> murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow >> one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and >> speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkampgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:45:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel? I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based ideology. But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses. I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate, interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need. So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it either. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:58:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ > Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas > haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's > because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties. That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something. Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive, and they recognized this. The implications for today are self-evident. As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the Zionists actively fought against religious practice. -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:11:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote: : That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I : don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:19:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Elli Fischer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:19:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham", He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict so many murderers. ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? -- Rabbi Elli Fischer Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting fischer.tirgum at gmail.com Twitter: @adderabbi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:27:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170901152729.GI31810@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so : that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power : and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, : false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why : we continue to remember Amalek. R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8) RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can can pass as soon as we stop being a threat. Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as chinam. So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah. This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on what they did, and not let it Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't, why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred we feel once we realize they hate us back. The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how to address sin'as chinam. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 07:27:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only > superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any > other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't > mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it > became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly > damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there. But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 31 16:08:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:08:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias" and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell "Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote: : As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign : names? As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations. The use of : aleph and ayin always makes things interesting. The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE 126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them. It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.) My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud. There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef; patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud. On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued: :> The very point I was trying to make is that yes, : I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an : English word into Hebrew. : If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1 : spelling. Especially for more complicated names. As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)... There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others. I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself. The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide English sounds among the established transliterations. "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the "j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and an English "ch". The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or "Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's where I could see debate. Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only said by some who know her? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:59:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:59:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" In-Reply-To: <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <20170831230804.GD29221@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4318c19f-0790-10f1-6bab-106d72e8dd9b@sero.name> On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/ thing for the "j". The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi teshuvot discuss it. IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it was spelt gimel yud. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:34:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:34:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The role of gematria, and remez in general In-Reply-To: References: <20170831012712.GC15493@aishdas.org> <488600f7-ef1c-3adb-b551-f3c00f739ff9@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170901163421.GC28962@aishdas.org> >From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria itself reached Avodah topicality. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim: > True. But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li > pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see > how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that. > R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other > opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not > one of them methods used to darshan Torah. And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:" : Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves : use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah... What is the role of Remez? We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh -- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.) Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat in the pasuq. And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod". But remez? What's it for? It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> <20170901151100.GH31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f004425-548e-142a-90de-48c5e91769b8@sero.name> On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 08:52:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I > don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand. > "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and > so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a > negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG. [Email #2] On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote: > He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was > not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict > so many murderers. > ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? > ???? ??? ??????? Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:24:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Moshe Feinstein on America In-Reply-To: References: <20170831195016.GA26310@aishdas.org> <82138777-ca05-ab40-9a37-1d0d60ca6092@zahav.net.il> <20170901144559.GA31810@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901172407.GB14196@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means : they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records. The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which would either mean: 1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency. Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't try to fix what you can? 2- They felt they were insufficient in skill. Or a third or fourth possibility. I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death. Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment. And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9, the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death. He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then. R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin" which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time getting permission to execute someone than they did. But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi wrong. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 09:52:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote: > > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded > > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare > > the home for Shabbos. > >Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. >The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was >"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a >level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why >this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, >because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs >of the home." > >In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting >the lights is part of that! Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) >Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be >in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do >something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I >think that's all the Tur is saying. You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness, >Finally, the OU writes: > > > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah > > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the > > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us > > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks > > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros > > the wicks will easily catch fire. > >It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully >understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain >piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and >difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a >charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later. >In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be >counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be >*more* difficult to light later on. Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 10:32:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:32:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412cee4b-73a8-f3ae-bd8f-d8051cb68646@sero.name> On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually > oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:03:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, from Jewish breakaway groups). Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). Another (lesser known one): the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha. (IIRC, the S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.) My question is this: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and something comparable in secular life. Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from some other group/idealogy? (E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of it's Nazi association. But I'm looking for a better and more relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't a common design anyway)). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:07:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we : are going to have a cholent on shabbos). I would like to draw some : sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and : something comparable in secular life. Something so direct, it's not even an analogy. Jewish: Yichud. Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the opposite gender. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 14:17:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> >The following are universally accepted >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all >Halacha and even Minhag Is this the case? According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm , the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos). He also mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613. (As they each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) ) So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? (In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or so. So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did the general opinion change? Or did it?) -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 02:39:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:39:26 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath Message-ID: Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel during their Shabbath? Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, text (SMS) or WhatsApp? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 2 12:09:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality.? So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 03:38:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 06:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? Message-ID: . I wrote: > In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then > lighting the lights is part of that! and R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of > homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles? > ... > Given that roles today are much different than they were in > the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles > should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I > am simply playing the devil's advocate here.) The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive. I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For example, if non-family are present, some might consider this non-tzniyus. But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other. > Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which > are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights > with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is > no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem > with Shabbos neiros? As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that does not apply to Chanukah. My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 04:08:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros Message-ID: . R' Sholom Simon asked: > Can anybody think of a secular (ideally, American) law or > common custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish > ourselves from some other group/idealogy? R' Micha Berger's response of yichud is a great example of where secular society has grasped the importance of gezeros which help protect us from ourselves. Similarly, secular society understands the concept of Mar'is Ayin and Chashad, and they express this in the term "Appearance of impropriety". (There's even a short Wikipedia page with that title.) But I don't think either of these is what RSS was asking for. He wants examples where the purpose is specifically: > in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, > from Jewish breakaway groups). > > Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos > (to distinguish ourselves from tzadukim). The answer that first came to my mind is that the original American colonists adopted various practices to distinguish themselves from their European origins. I'm sure there were others, but the main one that comes to my mind is the spelling differences between British and American English. For example, the Wikipedia article "Comparison of American and British English" says: "One particular contribution towards formalizing these differences came from Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionary (published 1828) with the intention of showing that people in the United States spoke a different dialect from Britain, much like a regional accent." Akiva Miller PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, where we are uneqivocally supposed to do it one way, but the other way is grudgingly acceptable after the fact. (Speeding limits are *not* a good example of this. The policeman will probably not stop you for going slightly over the limit, but he certainly could. That would be a Chetzi Shiur at most - a clear violation, even if not a punishable one.) If anyone has good examples, please start a new thread. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 1 15:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 06:07 PM 9/1/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >Jewish: Yichud. >Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy >about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the >opposite gender. Thanks -- but I'm looking more for something that is intended to separate us (us "regular Americans" -- whatever that is) from a people or nation or ideology that we find distasteful. An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). I'm looking for a law or practice that *separates/distinguishes" (havdil) - your example is more like a "fence." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest example I can think of is not secular. Mennonite (including Amish) men shave their moustaches to express their rejection of all things military, because when their customs were formed soldiers wore moustaches. > PS: Along similar lines, I have long searched for a secular idea that > is similar to our concept of l'chatchila and b'dieved, There's the principle "de mimimis non curat lex", but that's more like chatzi shiur, which civil law considers mutar lechatchila. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:15:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Electronic Communications to People in Israel During Their Shabbath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <657b8edc-97f8-5fa2-45c9-7efe94200b60@sero.name> On 02/09/17 05:39, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > Is it permissible to send electronic communications to people in Israel > during their Shabbath? > > Does it make a difference whether the communication is via e-mail, fax, > text (SMS) or WhatsApp? If you know they won't break shabbos to read it, or at least you don't know they will break shabbos to read it, then I don't see a problem. "Ee ata metzuveh al shevisas keilim". It's not shabbos for you; it is shabbos for the remote instrument that you are manipulating, but that is not a problem. The same would apply to operating a waldo that's in a place where it's shabbos; it's shevisas keilim, which BH says is not a thing. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:28:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: <8aba3e62-ed70-c6f8-ff6e-6a633eb7eeea@sero.name> Message-ID: <12a7adb9-e48c-7af7-3fb2-7ee96c2a3799@sero.name> On 02/09/17 15:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue > here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a > reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and > Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but > it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand > that we live in this reality. But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:51:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:51:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (1:4) writes: "When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel ... They would come to the Beis Din at the entrance to the Azara. If they knew [the din] they would tell them, if not everyone went into the Beis Din and asked. ... If the matter was not clear to the Beis Din they would discuss the issue until all agreed or they they would take a vote and follow the majority and tell the petitioners this is the halacha" The Rambam is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 88 which states the following: "At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Beis Din Hagadol. The Beis Din Hagadol was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah). If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide. After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai)." There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the Tannaim, the Gemara in fact related that they left their place in the Lishkas ha'Gazis 40 years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. If so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol in existence? 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 06:23:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: , <20170901211750.XFWB14996.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: From: Sholom Simon Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:17 PM > The following are universally accepted > 1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha > and even Minhag > Is this the case? ... > So... what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)? Did everyone > accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al? As in many things, the Rambam seems not to have been noticed. This is distressing, because the Rambam tries to present things according to halokho, not according to medrash. As he says in his introduction to the Tenth Pereq of Sanhedrin in Perush haMishnayot, medrash is almost never to be taken literally, but rather comes to teach us things (but says that most Jews don't understand that). For halakhic purposes, the Rambam explains in Hil. M'lakhim 9:1, that Adam haRishon observed 6 things that he was commanded. One was added after the Mabbul, so yielding 7 mitzvos that Noah and his descendents were commanded to observe. Avraham Avinu was also commanded concerning Milah, and he took upon himself the obligation to daven Shacharit. Yitzchak added another two, and Ya'aqov another two. When rabbis say that Avraham observed all 613 Mitvot, it is obviously not meant literally: many, many of the 613 only came into force after King Shlomo built the BhM. Before that, there were a whole set of other mitzvot (such as that the Kohanim and only the Kohanim wereto take apart and assemble the Mishkan, and that the L'viyim and only the L'viyim were to carry the parts of the Mishkan). These were commandments from HQBH, but not part of the set of 613. When the BhM was built, those mitzvot disappeared and new mitzvot, which are part of the 613 count, came into effect. So before that no one "observed" the 613. And some of the 613 are only applicable to Kohanim, and some only to L'viyim, and some only to Yisra'elim, so there was no person ever who observed or could observe all 613 mitzvot. So when we say nowadays that Jews are commanded to observe 613 mitzvot it does not mean that any person is commanded to observe all 613; it means that there exist 613 mitzvot. Every Jew is commanded to learn all 613, however. So it is possible that the Avot learned all 613. But most of them were not technically mitzvot then, because they were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and before that no one was commanded to do them. So what does the Torah mean when it says that Avraham observed "mishmarti, mitzvotai,chuqqotai v'torotai" (sic, not "toratei) in Chapter 26? The same thing that it means in 18:19 "for I know him, that he will command his children and his house after him to obeserve the way of the Lord." There is no question that Avraham Avinu was ALSO commanded to observe what Chazal include in the term "Derekh Eretz" and the Rambam explicates in Hil. De'ot Pereq 6, which included such basic things as proper behavior and middot (and one of the main goals of the Aishdas organization, and nowadays is called "mussar"). Chazal say that all of those things have to come before Torah, i.e. before learning rest of the Torah. And, as Micha the founder of Aishdas can tell you better than anyone, there are so many, many things that one has to learn and focus on to observe these most basic of the commandments. So Avraham would have had his hands full teaching people those. Did he also learn all the mitzvot that would be given later? He was a novi, and so perhaps could, but one cannot say that he "observed" them in the literal sense, because how could one "observe" a law that had not yet been instituted and was not even applicable? Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 17:39:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when : American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. : (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their national ethnicity. I think this topic has become non-PC. Nationalism is even a dirty word in some circles; viewed as faschism, or fascism-lite. You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without running afoul of rules about discussing politics? But I hope that at least relating the two topics will provide something to think about. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 10:58:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel > and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the > Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din > Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority and passed their 18 gezeros. The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the period of the zugos. Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 12:44:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:44:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 03/09/17 09:51, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > >> 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel >> and Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the >> Mishna? Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din >> Hagadol for most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. >> > > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority > and passed their 18 gezeros. That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. > The question is why they didn't resolve everything else too. > Particularly the machlokes over smicha which continued throughout the > period of the zugos. Yes that is exactly the question. Why didn't they resolve all of the Machlokes in the Mishnayos. > Perhaps out of kavod for both the Nassi and the Av Bes Din none of the > other 69 wanted to contradict either of them. Wouldn't that violate the issur of lo tasuguru mipnei ish? > > > -- > Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, > zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 3 18:14:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7333f45e-37cb-8ad0-ca8f-bffbb68048f8@gmail.com> Sun, 3 Sep 2017 Marty Bluke asked: > ...The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the > Tannaim... > so how can the Rambam write When the Beis Din Hagadol was in existence > there was no machlokes in Israel when Hillel and Shammai and their students > had disputes that were unresolved when there clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol > in existence? > 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and > Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? > Why did they let Machlokes fester? Their clearly was a Beis Din Hagadol for > most if not all of the period of the Tannaim. By '''in existence,'' the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The English-language Jewish history books that have been published over the past few decades follow this model. I have also done so in ''The Dynamics of Dispute,'' (Judaica Press) Chapter 10, ''The Control and Proliferation of Machlokess, Keeping the Torah One.'' Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 01:59:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:59:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:01:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> On 05/09/17 04:59, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both > David and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never > attempted to wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females must be killed as well. Your question of how Agag's descendants, conceived the night before he was killed, managed to become so numerous so quickly applies here too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:17:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:17:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? Message-ID: According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. However, others disagree. Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/yblaj8cu If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:49:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:49:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate it > into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? > Greek changed a lot over the centuries. I'm not sure if it even existed as a language at the time of Joshua, and the Greek alphabet was certainly much later. If Greek was the one of the languages the Torah was translated into then it would probably have been unrecognizable in the Hellenistic period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 09:17:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> On 05/09/17 11:17, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 languages, > then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages to translate > it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek translation? 1. Ptolemy, not Alexander. 2. 72 sages, not 70. 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) exist today? 4. Even if the writing did still exist, would whatever passed for Greek in 1271 BCE have been intelligible in 271 BCE? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 08:36:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:36:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/5/2017 6:17 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > According to some the entire Torah was written on these stones. > However, others disagree. ... > If as some hold that the entire Torah was translated into 70 > languages, then why was it necessary for Alexander to gather 70 sages > to translate it into Greek. Didn't there already exist a Greek > translation? Well, for one thing, it was Ptolemy, rather than Alexander. But for another, maybe it wasn't necessary. Perhaps if they'd simply asked for the authoritative Greek translation, they'd have gotten it, and any number of distortions of the Torah caused by the Septuagint wouldn't have happened. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:20:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parshat Ki Tavo: What Was Written on the Stones? In-Reply-To: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> References: <5008ab9b-c6ec-886e-0b1e-06f059bfbc26@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170905182040.GB2253@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:17:10PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : 3. Why do you think the stones, with the plaster on them and the : writing on the plaster, still existed after 1000 years of exposure : to the elements? Does any 1000-year-old writing (not engraving) : exist today? Rishonim on Yehoshua also argue how many such monuments there were. For example Rashi (at least as explained in Gur Aryeih) has three copies: one in the Yaedrin, one on the mizbeiach on Har Eivel (which is named in Devarim) and one at Gilgal. AND there is a machloqes tanna'im (Sotah 35b) about how they were written. But I think both shitos hold they were engraced. R' Shimon says that the stones were plastered, and then the words were engraved into the plaster. R' Yehudah held the stones were engraved, and then plastered on top of them. R' Yehudah's position sounds like it's describing more permanent writing, but how would you get to see it? You would not only need to peel off the plaster, the plaster could well get into the engraved letters. To address the original question: Ezra haSofer used majority to produce the mesoretic text, leaving us with a sefer that didn't match any of the copies found. Why didn't he check the Hebrew copy/ies from the monunemnt(s)? Wouldn't a text engraved by people who met MRAH be more authoritative than any of them? (All this assuming, as is the post I'm replying to, that they contained the whole Torah. That is the shitah we're trying to understand, no?) So it would seem to me that just as we have no idea how to find this monument / these monuments, even if the writing is still legible, they were already unavailable in Ezra's day. Unsurprising, given how much more pragmatic and used knowledge was lost. And even if they did know where to find it, either the writing wore off the plaster, or perhaps the plaster was too embedded after all those centuries to be picked off to read the stone. Regardless of the shift in Greek, the stones weren't even usable when the target was the original Hebrew. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 11:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] what mitzvos did Avos follow? In-Reply-To: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> References: <20170901211750.OOI6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170905184626.GC2253@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:17:58PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >The following are universally accepted : >1] AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all : >Halacha and even Minhag : : Is this the case? In a footnote to one of his father-in-law's maamarim, RMMS (the LR), writes that this is meant that they did so "beruchnius, velo begashmius": Some mitzvos they "only" fulfilled the point of the mitzvah without physically doing the mitzvah. E.g. tefillin, with its mention of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. Others, they did perform the mitzvah physically, but still they only did so to accomplish the ruchnius -- it was only incidentally physical, and only sometimes in the same form. See http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31608&st=&pgnum=137 For example (not given there), the Zohar links Yaaqov's spotted sticks and changing the coats of sheep to the mitzvah of tefillin. But the sticks didn't become qadosh, because uplifting and redeeming the gashmi wasn't part of the plan. There is more in Liqutei Sichos on Lekh Lekha www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/68627/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Lech-Lecha.htm Given RMMS's relationship to shitas Rashi, and our stereotype that chassidus tends to take maximalist positions, I thought this position would be somewhat interesting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 13:30:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:30:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> Message-ID: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females > must be killed as well. How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what the mitzvah and the dinim were? Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently no one informed him. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 5 20:43:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 05/09/17 16:30, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 9/5/2017 5:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> David did; Yoav killed all the males but didn't know that the females >> must be killed as well. > > How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him what > the mitzvah and the dinim were? They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 07:45:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:43:20PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : They had no printed chumashim with nekudos, of course. His rebbe : taught him to read "macho timcheh es z'char amalek", instead of : "zecher". Apparently he never had occasion to read this parsha in : front of anyone else, so nobody ever corrected him, and he never : knew about the correct pronunciation until he did this. He was so : angry he killed his rebbe for his malpractice. BB 21b. I think he concluded said rebbe (Yoav) did it as intentional ziyuf, not an error. R Mordechai Breuer concludes that the semichut (i.e. the "X of Y" form of the word for X) for "zakhar" could follow a variant conjugation and come out "zekher". And while it's hard to picture confusing "z'khar" and "zeikher", "zekher" and "zeikher" is much easier. The "zekher" vs "zeikher" debate over what the Gra had for Parashas Zakhor was over which means the Gra's intent was to tell us the word means "reminder / memorial" rather than "memory". The mesorah is "zeikher". But if zekher could mean both "males of" and "memory of", the mistake is VERY easy. (Not that RMB would worry about the possibility of the Gra disagreeing with the mesoretic niqud.) But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? It's strange. In our culture, it would be the "hot topic" of study for the weeks leading into the war... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 11:48:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > error. No. Why would he do that? The Rishonim discuss whether the rebbe himself didn't know the correct pronunciation, or whether he knew it and therefore taught it corrrectly, but didn't pay enough attention to how each boy was pronouncing it, so never noticed that young Yoav had misheard him and was reading "z'char". > But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 15:51:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an : >error. : No. Why would he do that? A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't get clarification /before/ the war? And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most of the animals? Actually, if you figure the remaining animals were for qorbanos, he was planning on all them being killed. A random reenactment of Yericho? Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 6 19:12:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> On 06/09/17 18:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/09/17 10:45, Micha Berger wrote: > : >I think he concluded said rebbe did it as intentional ziyuf, not an > : >error. > > : No. Why would he do that? > > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. I don't understand why you keep bringing David up. What does he have to do with this story? The story is about Yoav, not David. And I repeat my question, why would Yoav's rebbe intentionally corrupt the pasuk? Why would Yoav even suspect him of it? > :> But in any case, #6 on the Rambam's history of gedolei hador since Sinai > :> never learned the sugya with anyone in the beis medrash? > > : Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. So how does that make Yoav a gadol? > And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? Why would it even occur to him that Yoav had such a misunderstanding? > And why did he think Shelomo haMelekh killed all the women and most > of the animals? Do you mean Shaul? Perhaps Yoav didn't know the details of what had happened all those years ago. In fact how many people ever knew about Shmuel's rebuke of Shaul? It may have been secret by the king's order, and not spoken about, so Yoav may never even have heard of it. > Was there no one in the beis medrash who had it right? Who spoke up when > it was too late, but wasn't there to be asked? Again, Yoav thought he had it right. He didn't even know that there was anything he needed to ask. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 00:02:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi@opengemara.org via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3FF2B345-8199-48FC-A3BD-6A89FC2540F9@opengemara.org> On September 6, 2017 3:51pm PDT, Micha Berger wrote: ... > A king can extrajudicially kill, but for an honest mistake? > And yet no one discusses this as a sin on David haMelekh's part. .. >: Yoav was a gadol hador?! I don't see him listed in the Rambam's hakdamah. > No! David haMelekh is the 6th name on the list. And how did someone > at or rising to that level never discussed Yoav's shitah with others, > particularly during the ramp-up time to the war. How is it DhM didn't > get clarification /before/ the war? The Gemara (Bava Basra 21b) says that the issue was "???? ???? ????? ?' ???? [arur oseh melekhes H' remiyah -mb]" -- that the teacher should be more attentive (also, it fits into the Sugya there -- that a teacher who is medayek is better than one who's fast). Also, there's a machlokes in Sanhedrin if Yoav was a good person who made mistakes or if he was evil but found Dovid Hamelech to strong. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 09:45:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:45:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: R' Martin Bluke asked: > 1. When Shaul returns to Shmuel Hanavi after fighting Amalek he says > hakimosi es dvar hashem that he destroyed Amalek and in fact, the Medrash > states that Amalek only survived because Agag was allowed to live the night > and it was his descendents that perpetuated Amalek. > > However, the Navi says (Shmuel 1 30) that a few years later David fought > Amalek in Tziklag and 400 Amalekim escaped. Who were these Amalekim if > Shaul had wiped them out a few years earlier? > > 2. Why did no King after Shaul attempt to fulfill this Mitzva? Both David > and Shlomo certainly had the power to do so and yet they never attempted to > wipe out Amalek, nor did any other king, why not? This leads Rav Menachem Leibtag to offer what I consider the most cogent and most ethically sensitive interpretation of the commandment to wipe out Amalek. First the data: * The mitzva kicks in behaniach haShem Elo-hekha lekha mikol oyevekha misaviv, i.e. when we have peace and no other pressing matters. * The mitzva is, according to Rambam, on the melekh * As we can see from the pessukim, and against some of the mefarshim, there does not seem to exist any mitzva to go after every individual, and it isn't fully genetic. David killed an Amaleki for killing Shaul or for robbing his body and pretending to have killed him (and thus try to get into David's good graces, as Amalek understood royal grace to happen). But David didn't even hint that he was killed for being from that perpetual enemy nation. Shaul was criticized for taking the sheep, but not for a fairly large number of amalekites who later attacked Tziklag, David's Pelishti stronghold. * Ergo, we must think differently about what it is that obligates mechiyat Amalek and also doesn't make the continued existence of other Amalekites a problem. So Rav Leibtag suggests that we had to destroy Amalek as an act of international altruism, which was totally ruined by Shaul. Basically, Amalek are a pirate people, who won't be reformed. They were pirates attacking us davka when we were an easy pray, ve-ata 'ayef veyagea', and continued their piracy consistently, for over 400 years. Like the later Vikings, they live from spoils and take prisoners only to enslave them; unlike the Vikings, Amalek did not end up settling down as Normans, but remained pirates. David thus found out who attacked Tziklag because he found a sick prisoner who had been abandoned to die in the desert. So davka when we are under no outside threat, when we're doing well and can defend ourselves against Amalek easily, are we to fight and destroy them, because they threaten all voyagers, including Moabites, Amonites, Edomites, Egyptians & co. By not taking any spoils, we'd show the world that we didn't attack them to get even or get spoils, but rather to make the world safer (think the international force that fights piracy off the Erithrean coast). But by taking the animals, even for sacrifices, Shaul ruined that important sign, and Israel is no longer fighting for peace, but for revenge or for spoils, no better than Amalek itself. Shaul destroyed Amalek's stronghold. That was enough, and had he not taken the cattle and sheep, he'd have fulfilled G"d's command. Ad kaan. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 11:15:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Practices of the Tochacha" Message-ID: Received this from another list that I am on and thought it was well written and very interesting. http://rabbikaganoff.com/practices-of-the-tochacha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 12:54:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reactionary takanos and gezeiros In-Reply-To: <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> References: <20170901210309.XLY22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <20170901220715.GA8117@aishdas.org> <20170901224127.CDTB6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> <20170904003916.GA5847@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170907195348.KNNX30763.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> At 08:39 PM 9/3/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:41:27PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: >: An example, actually, just came to mind as I was typing this: when >: American changed from the noun of "frankfurter" to "hot dog" during WW-I. >: (Or, "freedom fries". Uggh). > >Given the nature of America, thix is going to be rare. I would have >recommended looking to European examples, but recently Europe has taken >to bending over backwards to be welcoming rather than to preserve their >national ethnicity. . . . > >You might disagree, or not, but can we take this any further without >running afoul of rules about discussing politics? Perhaps. Nationalism is certainly generally considered acceptable with respect to Americans and the American Revolution! Does anyone know if there were some customs we adopted, or rejected, to culturally separate ourselves from England at that time? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 14:24:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Godlessness In-Reply-To: <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> References: <02cc01d31ba9$550f5ed0$ff2e1c70$@gmail.com> <5346D225-E27B-4254-BF59-C3DC6756B1C8@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170907212448.GC15354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:26AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi Aryeh Klapper- Can Unethical People Be Holy? : http://library.yctorah.org/wp-content/audio/yi2016CanUnethicalPeopleBeHoly.mp3 Quoting R Shimon Shkop's haqdamah, my translation: All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose, which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 15:38:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] In its mother's milk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170907223856.GD15354@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only" : d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its : mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right? : : Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, : but we don't hold like him. Well the Rambam gives this derashah anyway -- Maakhalos Asuros 9:4. It's also not only RYhG... Mekhilta deR' Yishmael, Mishpatim #20. ... : We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from : Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus : seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's : significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva, : suggesting that this is indeed the halacha. Not to mention our assuring poultry with milk. From a few blatt later (you discussed Chullin 113a, this is 115a), we learn that bimqomo shel RYhG, hayu okheilin besar owf bechalav. Presumably they never accepted the gezeira. Why am I so sure it's the same machloqes, that RYhG's opinion in the mishnah led to the minhag's non-acceptance where he was LOR? I don't know. But it would seem odd if his position was the neglected one in two distinct machloqesin on the same topic; common cause seems more likely. : So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"? Sanhedrin 4a (bottom) quotes the pasuq and says "derekh bishul aserah Torah". Rashi says that milk can support bishul, cheilev, not so much. I mention this only because it killed my theory that "bachaleiv imo" was to disambiguate chalav from cheilev. Nor would this explain "imo" rather than "eim", anyway. We don't need "hcaleiv eim/imo" if we get that conclusion from "sevasheil". And the reason why I was proud of that theory is that R' Aqiva holds yeish eim lamiqra, not lemesoret. So our knowing what the vowels should be wouldn't be enough to establish the din. I had this whole beautiful edifice suggesting that the machloqes actually starts with yeish eim lemiqra. But it crashed down. Maybe it'll spark a viable idea in someone else's head. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 7 23:55:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> References: <3f119101-d02f-4d32-e2da-9ed3e08f367d@sero.name> <30ff4866-a3ef-9d03-31d4-8023b3adf2a0@zahav.net.il> <20170906144515.GF17828@aishdas.org> <1f86a92b-0dcb-eebc-f8a0-10e75c713800@sero.name> <20170906225131.GA18887@aishdas.org> <2cc87130-49b0-a634-0c89-acd059e356f9@sero.name> Message-ID: Nothing new under the sun. What someone learns in gan is what sticks with him the rest of life. Ben On 9/7/2017 4:12 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Again, Yoav thought he had it right.? He didn't even know that there > was anything he needed to ask. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 11:55:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek Message-ID: I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 13:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:06:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 2:55pm EDT, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote: : I have seen it attributed to the Gr"a (but don't remember where I saw : it) that Yoav's rebbi's error was to render the word as "zecher," rather : than "zeicher," and interpreting the word as the s'michus form of "zachar," : just as "k'eshen hakivshan" in Sh'mos 19:18 is s'michus for ashan. R Mordechai Breuer On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:30pm Israel Daylight Time, R Ben Waxman wrote: : How is it that Yoav made such a grievous mistake? No one told him : what the mitzvah and the dinim were? : Having said that, it seems that even righteous kings made grievous : mistakes in the halacha. David (according to the Ramban) didn't know : that counting the number of Bnei Yisrael was assur, and apparently : no one informed him. And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav was strongly deferential to David. Alternatively (and this has been my working assumption, as I can't picture the scene playing out any other way), Yoav did consult with David haMelekh, who bought in to Yoav's position. But that raises the questions as to why. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 8 14:02:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> On 08/09/17 16:06, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, apparently, the king and the head general didn't discuss anything > about the prosecution of the war. Despite the fact that the law is a > unique mitzvah, and the king was also the av beis din. AND we know Yoav > was strongly deferential to David. I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. Suppose you're a caterer and I'm your loyal chef, and we're planning a menu which includes liver. You tell me that it will be my job to kasher the liver, and I agree. You think I know how to do that, and *I* think I know how to do that, but in fact I haven't got a clue. How would that play out? At what point would you realise that you have to teach me this halacha? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 9 19:13:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nefel - Issur Neveilah, Issur BBCh, Issur Chul UL Issur Message-ID: RaMBaM [MAsuros 9:6] explains that although it is Assur to cook a Neveilah cow or Cheilev in milk it is not prohibited to eat them because of BBCh [but only because of Neveilah or Cheilev] since it is already Assur and Ein Issur Chal Al Issur. So how is it that RaMBaM MAsuros 9:7 Paskens that a Shellil [a prematurely born foetus] may not be cooked with milk nor may it beaten if it was cooked with milk, when RaMBaM paskens [4:4] that the Shelil is a Neveilah? BTW the HaGaHos HaRaMach 7:1, does not know the source for the this ruling May the new year bring us to appreciate HKBH's gifts and renew our commitment to be energetic to learn Torah with joy sweetness and passion Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 03:11:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? Message-ID: > By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' > Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources > that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol > could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and > Beis Hillel were unable to unite. The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam says? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:18:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:18:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/10/2017 1:11 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to function normally. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 05:43:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:43:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > There was only one machloket during the time of the Zugot. And in the > time after that, no there was never a time when the Sanhedrin was able to > function normally. And how do you know that? In fact from the Gemara it seems not that way. The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" During that period they made significant takanos such as pruzbul, therefore it is hard to believe that during that whole period of time the Sanhedrin was not functioning normally. [Email #2. -micha] One additional point. The Rambam holds that the Kiddush Hachodesh and Ibur Shana needs to be done by the Sanhedrin (or it's appointees). We know that they were Mekadesh the Chodesh and Maber the Shana throughout the period of the Bayis Sheini so clearly, the Sanhedrin was functioning enough to do this, so why couldn't they decide the disputes? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 07:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91da4a07-6dcd-bc04-b9e0-38326532931d@sero.name> On 10/09/17 06:11, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > > The the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the one on smicha, which they may not have wanted to resolve, out of kavod to both sides. (No, this would not violate lo saguru; they weren't afraid to cast their votes if it came to it, they just didn't want it to get to that point and would rather live with this one very minor machlokes. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 10:02:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : While there may have : been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, : why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam : says? Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin, when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin. (Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.) So, what happened? My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed resolution by higher courts. IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 15:32:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45eac523-5fc8-1a2c-0c9a-256d54c2e054@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke >> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R' >> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources >> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol >> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and >> Beis Hillel were unable to unite. > The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during > those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have > been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so, > why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam > says? They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700), when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704, while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate, and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards. There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows Beis Hillel. Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become the standard one. All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 10 20:42:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about mechiyas amalek In-Reply-To: <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> References: <20170908200606.GA23923@aishdas.org> <6ed475ab-50ee-20f6-bcfe-33829e418865@sero.name> Message-ID: <6c5042b2-7703-92b5-e001-b2e5bc111010@zahav.net.il> In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these issues when instructing the soldiers? Ben On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > I don't see why this detail would ever have come up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 01:20:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the > one on smicha What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. [Email #2] On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different > conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed > resolution by higher courts. > > IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. > > To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of > valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 06:23:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha" > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini. No, they weren't. BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they started in the very last years before it, when things were far from normal functioning. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170911151131.GF24527@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? : Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis : Sheini. But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis. I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a "veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule. The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer. Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq, for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al devarav, for even these greats weren't. So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the best answer to your question. And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to the late amoraim? Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why (leshitas haRambam) the question was still around? : On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes. :> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of :> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq? : The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white : approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim : "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything : in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying : that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini. (Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's just projecting.) There is a difference between 1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah saying it means the last two are in reversed order; and 2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this idea would be kosher. The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin. And yet, multiple norms would co-exist. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:20:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the destruction of Bayit Sheni. Lisa On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the >> one on smicha > What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? > Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis > Sheini. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 07:13:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories Message-ID: <20170911141302.GB24527@aishdas.org> Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav in a different direction. I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the "q" in "Amaleiq".) : I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported : wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher : Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where : we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history. : Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint : in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious : revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of : anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where : the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in : order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal : add a story that isn't needed. : Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or : pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some : of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising, : but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read : historically, I wonder. I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.) Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened" the criteria for such categorization? If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories that defy how the world works. (And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who accept miracles.) In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures. Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid. IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh and av deis din derelict in his duty? The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because they're only ahistoric. I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from within the midrashic-story system. So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..." While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise" far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 04:54:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:54:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty. Rabbi Akiva lived at the > time of the Bar Kochva revolt. R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later. The > vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the > destruction of Bayit Sheni. While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh)" These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 17:20:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> Message-ID: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel, > Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was > Nasi in Yavneh)" And how many of those feature in any machlokos? Hillel & Shammai had only three, beside the long-running one on smicha. > These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel & Shammai do. Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to dispute? > Hillel and Shammai were certainly > well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their > students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai. I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo ra'u". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 11 18:19:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:19:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 07:02:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? Message-ID: <1505224922640.65779@stevens.edu> Please see the video at http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb produced by the Harabonim of Queens YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 12 20:16:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:16:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? In-Reply-To: <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> References: <20170910170244.GA17814@aishdas.org> <94ef0d18-f291-b83d-a8c5-3af42edfa4ca@starways.net> <9ebb7079-f366-04fd-3359-09880c96a18a@sero.name> <20170912011957.GA23113@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe > the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were > gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". > Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of > machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the > teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the > lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on! As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one). Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF. * HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim, 1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130 concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora. (All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 08:49:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? Message-ID: <1505317742192.42683@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40) writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until thirteen and a half minutes after sunset. The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 13 11:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (hankman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:11:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Message-ID: R. Zvi Lampel wrote: ?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance to help?? CM responds: Yup, I imagine that would be the concordance in his head! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 06:28:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= Message-ID: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 08:54:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:54:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1972c71565914124a055d6b22f1f5fa2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170914155423.GD26813@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av : even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan? Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but... Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 09:44:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvot bnai noach In-Reply-To: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> References: <4AFB5CAB-CB38-477C-BC5F-529C693036FE@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20170914164428.GA4289@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is : applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven, : might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?.. I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981) count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei. So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod. While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such "tolados". : Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own : law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven? I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of authority is granted. There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of a Noachide court under dinim: The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society. This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10) and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid (Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim 10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim" includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law needs to look like. But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the other 6. This is shitas haRambam (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land. See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 11:58:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <103501d320c5$1695ab70$43c10250$@com> Message-ID: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min : ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger : (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat) Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin was a meat thing in particular. But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the brain. (* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're the consensus, by sheer number.) If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration. It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort to obtain the treif milk. R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:00:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story In-Reply-To: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> References: <20170914185823.GA11862@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4636649d-ed8e-bc04-6e80-c299a962507c@sero.name> On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash > et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case > to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive. > Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held > like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just" > understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge, > not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the > brain. You have the PC and CS reversed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.145085.1505409835.688122.2Jm@a2plmmsworker06.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1505420943267.43919@stevens.edu> Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 13:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170914201537.GB11862@aishdas.org> First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to R Akiva Miller's second post first. On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote: : As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that : takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real : halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the : lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort, : but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that : does not apply to Chanukah. I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT) is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function of neis Shabbos. IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation" as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her feel less that she is shouldering the list alone. Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote: : Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3. : The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was : "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a : level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why : this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this, : because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs : of the home." Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..." But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah kavsah neiro shel olam connection.) The MB too... So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU cites, "only" the nesei keilim. : In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting : the lights is part of that! Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where women can consistently be homemakers..." The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way. BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't know what to make of that. Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular social state? This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book "Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law" https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing, and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes. One paragraph: Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways. The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point: according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations in a range of mitzvot! Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't know): Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal family unit. RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the thesis: Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical, and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single sex. He did not do so. ... Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family, we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids. So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed social structure. RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers, among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular kinds of social structure over others. ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with a husband and wife at the core. ... Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for, community units that comprise family units which comprise individual units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis. A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is so much to say about it. Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield: Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are -- and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 14 14:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? In-Reply-To: References: <2f7290fa-cea4-4bdf-6e71-0761f14d9e22@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170914210406.GB10180@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote: : There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara): : 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the : Tannaim... According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im. According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion) it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over a dechuyah rule). So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and both talmuds. : 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and : Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna? To sum up: 1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah. : Why did they let Machlokes fester? ... 2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted, or cannot be taken at face value. a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from the lishkas hagazis. Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post: b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should. And I suggested: c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that distinguishes between them. And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote: : > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes. Every time they voted BH won : > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority : > and passed their 18 gezeros. : That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted. The Sanhedrin had a fixed : group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It : sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin. When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either mean - number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5) - number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT sham) So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that would explain why they too got counted. But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 09:28:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:28:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> >From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss : Question: If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition. Answer: He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like an average person, and certainly not Maaser. If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur cholim, miqvah, shuls... I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of the rest of the community. Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. (I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to help, I would appreciate it.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 11:15:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes? --------------------- From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? KVCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 15 12:22:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170915162840.GA17965@aishdas.org> <1cf6877f08a3490a9081021e26c974f8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170915192219.GD11421@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - : cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination? As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools (and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave them some guidelines for defining what that is. But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the complexity of their definition. And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/ poseiq would tell you to compute your share? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 17 07:08:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is the Customer Always Right? Message-ID: <95.E3.03036.1028EB95@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL Please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8 YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 15:19:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:19:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha > B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to > have a minyan? I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, as compared to wwithout a minyan. I thought that we say it Motzaei Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few days are left and we fear running out of time. Both reasons are even more relevant on Motzaei Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 18 21:39:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a25b83f-173e-6448-5511-011515a4e304@sero.name> On 18/09/17 18:19, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, > as compared to wwithout a minyan. Without a minyan one can't say the kaddish. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 01:56:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tuitiion Breaks and Tzedaka Message-ID: RMB wrote: > Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: > Since published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, > is that differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW > described -- because that's what the market price is? Or is the > differential maaser money that can therefore be given to other > urgent causes? > I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one > may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if > promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are > currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: It is meritorious to support Torah scholars, and you may dedicate a portion of your [maaser kesafim] funds even to support one's own son studying Torah. You may likewise use a portion of these funds to pay for the your adult children's yeshiva gedola, midrasha and college tuition, but you should not draw on these funds for paying tuition while in elementary or high school. [1] However, someone lives a modest lifestyle and still cannot otherwise make ends meet, may draw on these funds even to pay for a portion of his minor children's Jewish day school tuition. [2] Someone who benefits from a scholarship at an institution of Jewish education should prioritize that institution when giving charity, over other institutions. [3] 1: Chatam Sofer YD 249 2: Igrot Moshe YD2 ?113, but Aruch haShulchan YD 249:7 disagrees 3: Oral ruling by Rav Hershel Schachter It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka. I once sent my kids to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we are discussing, since it is a poor community). -- Arie Folger, Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 11:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral Message-ID: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> An Aish article notes: >The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >within them. There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first appear in Jewish thought?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 13:33:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom Message-ID: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> The most commonly cited reason that we say "oseh hashalom" rather than "oseh shalom" in kaddish during the 10 days, is that the gematria of hashalom is equivalent to the gematria of Safriel, the malach that "writes" us into the Book. (I just recently read somewhere else: "Hagahos Mordechai [Miseches Rosh Hashanah 720 he states as follows: Safiriel is the Gematria of Oseh and Oseh is the Gematria of Hashalom. Alternatively this hints to the kindness of Hashem that swerves the judgment to merit in a case that the sins and merits are equal, and the verse states "Maaseh Hatzedaka Shalom"." (I don't understand this second reason: the "sholom" in that last phrase doesn't have a "hey") I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their other reasons I am missing?) KvCT! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:30:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, are their > other reasons I am missing?) Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter counts. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 19 21:40:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <6d0c6039-0428-0174-88ec-0724ad47e1a5@sero.name> On 19/09/17 14:48, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> The Jewish model of time is a spiral. While time is certainly moving >> forward, it progresses ahead specifically through a seasonal cycle. >> Each year we pass through the same seasonal coordinates that are >> imbued with whatever spiritual potentials were initially established >> within them. I assume this is in the context of a discussion of the way people in ancient times used to see time as cyclical rather than as progressing, as we moderns see it. > I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. > > Thoughts? (And, if not from Chazal -- then where/when does it first > appear in Jewish thought?) The idea that specific days have fixed properties that repeat every time they come around is found everywhere in Chazal. They took it completely for granted, and of course it fits into the cyclical way the ancients saw all of time. But it's clear from the Torah that they *didn't* see time as cyclical. So the author of this article uses the spiral to explain how they did see it. But it's impossible to discuss this entire subject without the insight that there are different ways to see time, and without the two models -- cyclical and progressive -- to contrast, and to propose syntheses as this author does. Chazal did not have the historical perspective to be aware of this whole dichotomy. I suspect they were unaware that the nochrim of their era didn't see time as they did, and that the nochrim were just as unaware that Jews didn't see time as *they* did. Only looking back from 2000 years later is this difference apparent, and we can discuss how the Torah's progressive view of history can be reconciled with dates repeating themselves, by using the spiral analogy. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 08:45:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> <91e8e420-2310-4094-8472-4fa985b349f4@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170925154550.GC23052@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 19/09/17 16:33, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : >I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important : >as kaddish because of gematria. Do we see that elsewhere? (Or, : >are their other reasons I am missing?) : Nusach Hatefilah, especially Nusach Ashkenaz, was designed in the : first place largely on the basis of gematrias and word and letter : counts. At least both the Chassidei Ashkenaz and the Tur held it was. There is no evidence of this line of thought any closer to the actual start of Nusach Ashkenaz. And a number of the Tur's word counts are dependent on flavor of Nusach Ashkenaz. Could well be that the significance is itself part of a bigger machloqes. They could also be taken as post-facto kavvanos, a way keep in mind a pasuq that colors what we mean by the baqashah, rather than causitive. It is interesting to me that the violation of word count gematrios in Nusach Ashkenaz is largely among Chassidim, who we culturally associate as the community most likely to deal in such remez. Except perhaps for Chida and Ben Ish Hai influenced Sepharadim, but they didn't have a nusach that made such claims to ask why they would choose to leave it. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 05:38:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:38:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? Message-ID: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, and what HKB"H wants from us: Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot switch its use). GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 09:30:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 25/09/17 08:38, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Please take a shot at reconciling this statement with current practice, > and what HKB?H wants from us: > Rama Y?D 249:13 (my free translation) ? In any event one shouldn?t > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won?t he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz ? so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 10:19:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:19:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919203333.BNSG22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: We change "min kol" to "mikol" to make up for the addition of the extra "l'eila".? So that the word count stays the same.? So yes, we see this kind of thing everywhere, including kaddish. Lisa On 9/19/2017 11:33 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > I find it a bit odd to change the nusach of something so important as > kaddish because of gematria.? Do we see that elsewhere?? (Or, are > their other reasons I am missing?) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't > glorify oneself with the charity he gives, not only won't he receive > reward but he is even punished and in any event one who dedicates an > item to charity is permitted to write his name on it to be a memorial > for (to?) him and it is worthy to do so (Taz - so the community cannot > switch its use). Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item donated; so plaques and building names are fine. It's also completely proper, of course, for a mosad to honor a donor -- yehalelcha zar velo ficha. -- I leave it to the readers to project if people put a name on as a form of bragging (separate question - is it intent or what observer's perceive that counts?) It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the item is not in danger of being switched in use? GCT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:29:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] time as a spiral In-Reply-To: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20170919184838.ZGIX22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170925182902.GA16613@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:37PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : An Aish article notes: :> The Jewish model of time is a spiral... : There are lots of examples of this (Lot served matza, Rashi says it : was Pesach, etc.). Moed meets "meeting" -- where we meet H', etc. : The 10th of Tishrei has "forgiveness" somehow embedded in that time : (which is why H' forgave us on that day), etc. : I've also been told: there's no source for this notion in Chazal. There is no source, but it's a pretty compelling conclusion given Chazal's description of mo'eid, or chayav kol adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo repeating yetzi'as Mitzrayim annually OT1H, and yet OTOH speaking of history as inexorably running from Adam to the messianic era (and beyond). We might be the first generation consciously aware enough of the issue to think about our use of both language that implies circular time and that of linear time to want to make a synthesis "helical time". (True YU alumni would insist there is no helical time. Meaning comes from the tension of the dialectic; there is no syntheis. ) I don't question the value of lomdus, even though it is utilizing patterns in halakhah or halachic dialectic that weren't made explicit. Yes, that creates a change of error, but when the explanation is strong enough, do we reject the whole concept because the Rambam never spoke about gavra vs cheftza on topics other than oaths? Think how much hashkafah, or specifically Qabbalah, is drawn from just this kind of finding a theory to explain existing statements. This helical time is typical. So, is it a modern chiddush? That isn't a boolean question... to the extent you find this intepretation muchrach, it's inherent in what came bafore. And the the extent you don't, v.v. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 11:58:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>> Rama Y"D 249:13 (my free translation) - In any event one shouldn't :>> glorify oneself with the charity he gives... :> Where's the contradiction? People shouldn't brag about their :> donations; who does? But it's totally OK to put ones name on the item :> donated... ... : It is permitted but is it the preference of HKB"H especially if the : item is not in danger of being switched in use? I am personally bothered when there is so much text on the paroches or cloth on the bimah (term?) that it detracts from the aesthetics. I am also bothered when more space is spent naming the donors than naming and perhaps lauding the person in whose memory the donation was given. That said... I think the consensus is that things have fallen to the point that we have two offsetting values that outweigh this ill: 1- When the choice is between collecting multiples more money with giving out honors vs operating on a shoestring and having to cut corners by only taking more purely motivated donations, the extra tzedaqah given is a mitzvah that outweights the alternative. 2- Even someone who has pure motives and wants to give quietly is living in a society that will respond positively if his donation is made public and influences the community. Peer pressure isn't just for teenagers. I think it's parallel to choosing chalitzah as a first choice. It's clear from the pasuq and the content of the ritual that chalitzah is something that in the ideal no one should be encouraged to choose. But as Abba Shaul noted, we don't live in that ideal world, and what was second-rate has become (centuries later) mandatory practice. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 12:02:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170925190253.GE16613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:19:27PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm not aware of any advantage in saying Kiddush Levana with a minyan, : as compared to without a minyan... We make a point of demonstrating communal unity in the middle. "Shalom Aleikhem!" Not speaking halachically, as you aren't obligated to greet 9 men, or even really greet anyone. But still... Aside from Zev's example of getting one more qaddish, which is a nice but incidental advantage, it seems to me that QL itself leans toward being a tzibur thing. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:34:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Ben On 9/19/2017 12:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I thought that we say it Motzaei > Tisha B'Av as a general z'rizin makdimin thing, or because only a few > days are left and we fear running out of time. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 25 22:09:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:09:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naming Right? In-Reply-To: <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> References: <0c7ee86eea0e40bebb829c7ff9c460f5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <01f68462a3f34403a49a3e57a3a8380c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170925185839.GD16613@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <761520c3-faea-cd38-8ba8-ee24f675b3b7@sero.name> On 25/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > cloth on the bimah (term?) mappah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 03:39:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=E2=80=99av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <046338f8-991f-2216-c55d-6002821d57a1@sero.name> On 26/09/17 01:34, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the 4th of > Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? (similar to saying a > shechiyanu on new fruit during sefirat ha-omer; don't wait until Shabbat). Not everyone does that, in fact some don't even say it on Shabbat, and wait until Shavuot. So zrizin doesn't necessarily override avelut. Also many don't do kidush levana until after 7 days from the molad, by which time we're into the deeper avelut. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 06:45:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Kiddush_Levana_on_Motzai_Tisha_B=92av?= In-Reply-To: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> References: <77429249-9bb8-d5bd-2db9-272b45e72ee7@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170926134541.GB23180@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:34:30AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If the reason is z'rizin is the reason, than why not do it on the : 4th of Av? Why let the aveilut override the tefila? ... I am confused. Isn't the implication simply that all else being equal, do it earlier because zerizin, but aveilus is sufficient for not considering all else equal? Why does zerizus being applicable mean that it is necessarily the most urgent halachic principle coming into play? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 11:54:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Over on Areivim, we were yet again discussing the cRc's position that one should not buy coffee from a full Starbucks store that sells food. Here's my take, cut-n-pasted from what I posted there. ... There is a lot of ham and bacon at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=hot-breakfast and poultry at https://www.starbucks.com/menu/catalog/product?food=sandwiches-panini-and-wraps The cRc's statement refers to these in particular . It also questions your assumption of the ubiquitous use of soap: Chicago Rabbinical Council Guide to Starbucks Beverages May 2013 / June 2015 ... As said, Starbucks shops serve many kosher and non-kosher items, with the most serious non-kosher item being hot meat sandwiches. The standard daily clean-up at Starbucks includes a hot wash of all utensils and some parts of that washing are done without soap. This clean up process significantly challenges the kosher status of the otherwise kosher products and each product must be judged by a competent halachic authority. The cRc has made available their detailed review and analysis of this topic in the spring 2011 edition of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and that article can be found below. Click here to read this article. The good news is that there are many Starbucks locations that do not serve hot meat sandwiches. These are generally the Starbucks kiosks which can be defined as a Starbucks location, usually found in a mall, retail store, a bus or train station or airport, that does not sell hot sandwiches. The cRc is comfortable recommending any drink made from kosher ingredients (even though some others use ingredients that may not be kosher). This list is accurate at this time for stores in the United States based on two and a half years of extensive research and consultation with the cRc's Av Beth Din, Rav Schwartz, shlit"a.... Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. And that is consistent with the lenient majority. We're trying to understand the cRc's ruling. There is no derabbanan here[, to justify another poster's invocation of safeiq derabbanan]. They're saying that the odds of your cup being washed without soap with a plate that held hot bacon or tereifah chicken is high enough that one needs to avoid taking that risk. But that's real nosein ta'am of an issur de'oraisa. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:56pm +0300 someone wrote to Areivim, on a discussion of the cRc's ruling against : I don't drink coffee at all, so I'm not a frequent Starbucks customer, but : I suspect that a sandwich like : https://www.starbucks.com/menu/food/sandwiches-panini-and-wraps/chicken-blt-salad-sandwich?foodZone=9999 : is probably at least 1/60th chicken or bacon. The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 13:17:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women Message-ID: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the topic of leadership/ordination for women. (I am indebted to some of those here who helped sharpen arguments :-) ). I think I have adequately illustrated that their position is based on wrong/unproven facts, poor logic, fuzzy definitions, strained arguments, and inconsistent application of the rules. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need to have a comprehensive and systematic approach to gender and public/leadership. I am happy to respond to questions, critiques and criticisms. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/sneak-peek-an-analysis-of-the-ban-on-women-rabbis/ Noam Stadlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 12:38:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170926193827.GA27624@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:56:59AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: :> I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one :> may use maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if :> promoting that pesaq might not backfire among parents who are :> currently paying part of the differential based on the above reasoning. : From a chapter in a forthcoming book of mine: ... : It stands to reason that tuition beyond cost is definitely counted as : tzedaka, as the whole disagreement regards a father's obligation to his : minor children disqualifying tution from being considered tzedaka. But : what's beyond that should reasonably count as tzedaka.... Agreed, but I don't see how it's obvious. Say your handyman is a pious guy, and rather than not doing business with people who can't afford his full rate, he charges them less for labor. Also, Rn Handyman isn't so willing to take the full hit on total income. Since this is a nice guy, we can assume that if more of the town were wealthier, his usual rate for someone who can beqoshi stretch the budget would be lower. Is the difference in salary tzedaqah? Does it make a difference if Reb Handyman actuall did this accounting and maybe even announced the resulting differential? Or is a baal melakhah's pay rate money owed, and such cheshbonos should be irrelevent. This imaginary scenario was designed to be both parallel and to my mind a somewhat wild line of reasoning. 1- Once you say that any tuition paid beyond the cost for your child is indeed tzedaqah, one needs a pesaq about how to apportion group costs to each individual student. The cost of the class divided by students, then the cost of school administation divided by the student body? Or maybe if a teacher is hired as soon as a class would otherwise grow beyond 25 students, I should be looking at the incremental cost of my child after the need to start the additional class was caused by someone else? And then -- could it depend on if I registered late, or before the number of classes was determined? And don't get me started on who is paying for resource room staff, where there are parallels to the above AND the reality that different kids would be using different amount of the service. So that my kid's 1 hour per week may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to get a math specialist, whereas another student's 5 hours of readin help is with a teacher they needed otherwise. Who pays what? 2- Once you make it tzedaqah, rather than considering tuition as debt, all could be fine-and-well halachically. And so it can come out of maaser kesafim. (All the more so because we aren't even sure maaser kesafim is a din.) And the schools like this, because it frees up maaser money for people who would otherwise need scholarship. But the line you're replying to was arguing that there is a downside for the school as well. As the teshuvah we started from notes -- debt is a higher priority than tzedaqah. You don't pay maaser out of money owed. And so, the school is marketing a din that may mean /less/ money for them than if the halakhah were that the full tuition should be treated as a debt. position for a sch chakhamim don't have to pay city defenses; maybe a good kid who doesn't see the principal should be considered : to one school where the rabbinic committee established how much of tuition : may be counted towards ma'asser (they were even more generous than what we : are discussing, since it is a poor community). GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 26 21:47:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> References: <20170926185412.GD14241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4d52778a-5fe9-0dae-592c-ff6316a77877@sero.name> On 26/09/17 14:54, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Personally, I doubt any Starbucks with an A rating from the health > department actually puts dishes in hot water without soap with enough > regularity that you have to worry about the possibility WRT kashrus. They wash in soapy water first, and then in clear water. The cRc's position is that soapy water, which is hotter than yad soledes bo but cooler than kashering temp, prevents the transmission of treife taam from one keli to another when they are washed together, but it does *not* render the treife keli permanently pagum. The treife keli comes out just as treif as it was, so when it's then put into *clean* hot water together with the kosher keli the treife taam transfers. > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical substance at all, so it's not surprising that even if it permeates the keli's entire structure, which we assume it does, it doesn't add to its mass. This is also why the bracha on coffee is shehakol, not ha'etz, because there is no substance of the coffee bean in the final product; only taam, smell, and colour are transferred in the brewing, all of which are assumed to have zero mass. Which makes the existence of instant coffee a conundrum, and casts doubt on the practise of saying shehakol also on coffee made from instant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Tabory via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom Message-ID: Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim). Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. Yosef Tabory From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 08:26:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170927152646.GD1177@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:53:41PM +0000, Joseph Tabory via Avodah wrote: : Early Ashkenaz used the formula Oseh hashalom for the final blessing of : the Amidah (which was the standard formula in the pre-crusade Eretz Israel : minhag) whenever they said "besefer chayyim" (i.e. yamim noraim)... Nusach EY, as far as we can tell from the Cairo Geniza has a berakhah that started "Shalom Rav" and ended "... Oseh hashalom. Amein!" every tefillah. I find it funny that when Early Ashkenaz split the difference for the majority of the berakhah, using Rav Amram Gaon's nusach (the Babylonian "Sim Shalom") in the morning and Nusach EY (Shalom Rav) in the afternoon, they didn't also switch off on the closings. So the usual Minchah and Maariv Birkhas Shalom in Nusach Ashkenaz opens in one country and closes in another. Instead we switch off for an entirely different occation -- 10 yemei teshuvah. To me this gives strength to the supposition that even well before Chassidei Ashkenaz's gematria, /something/ indicated a connection between the variant "Oseh hashalom" and 10YT. Could well have been the same gematria. Or not; as I don't recall lots of discussion of gematria in general from the period, but I am no mumcheh. : Chasidei ashkenaz mentioned that "hashalom" was a gematriya for Safriel, : the angel who writes the books during the yamim noraim. The Ari did not : wish to change the usual formula of the final blessing but he thought : that the gematriya was significant. So he instituted the use of "Oseh : Hashalom" in the kaddish after the Amidah. The ahistorical merging of nusachos to produce Nusach Ashkenaz also suggests that early Ashkenazim also (like the Ari haQadosh) had significant reason to want "haMvareikh es amo Yisrael basholom" in frequent use. That it took the special 10YT connection to justify abandoning it. ----- While discussing the closing of Birkhas Shalom a mere week before yontef, let me repeat a joke told in shiur by R' Herschel Schachter. (Retold to me by my cousin, R' Jonathan/Eliezer Chelst, now a sho'el umeishiv in "Lakewood East".) You need to sing the punchline in standard Ashkenazi yontef nusach for the joke to work. Why are so many Jews overweight? Because we ask for it every yontef. There, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, we sing: Hamevareikh es amo Yisrael bash.... Amei-ein! Note: An amein chatufah is not only halachically improper (OC 124:8), apparently it can ch"v lead to heart disease and diabates! GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:30:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:30:33 +0000 Subject: “Timtum Ha-Lev” Redux Message-ID: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> >From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life Q: If someone is obligated to eat non-Kosher food because he is in a life-threatening situation, does the food cause him "dulling of the heart" (dulling of one's spiritual sense, "Timtum Ha-Lev")? A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on Shabbat 33a). Therefore, someone who eats non-Kosher food which is permitted to him, does not experience a "dulling of the heart" (Ha-Griz Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, also holds this way. Uvdot Ve-Hanhagot Mei-Beit Brisk Volume 2, p. 50. As well as Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski in his book "Orchot Yosher" #13). IIUC there are those who disagree (but not me) GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 11:29:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:29:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds Message-ID: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense that A gets more credit(schar) than B? My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. So, if you are C or D, you still must work hard to actualize all your potential to maximize A's or B's reward (as in when a child says kaddish, etc.) Thoughts? GCT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 19:34:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom Message-ID: . Over the years, there have been several threads about Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, and now we are in another one. It seems to me that previous (and current) discussions have been academic and scholarly, focusing on the texts in the sources and the preferences of the poskim. I hope no one will mind if I focus attention on a more practical point: the actual practice among Nusach Ashkenaz in Chutz Laaretz. I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. Specifically: Siddur Tifereth Jehudah, Hyman Charlap, Hebrew Publishing, 1912 Siddur Safah Berurah, M. Stern, Hebrew Publishing, 1928 Siddur Tikun Shlomo, Ktav, 1940 (Does anyone have a Tikun Meir? I couldn't find one.) Daily Prayer Book, Philip Birnbaum, Hebrew Publishing, 1949 Siddur Brachos V'hodaos, Hebrew Publishing, 1950 Shilo Prayer Book, Shilo Publishing, 1960 The Traditional Prayer Book, Rabbinical Council of America, Behrman House, 1960 Siddur Yeshuos Yisroel, Rabbi Moses Greenfield, Atereth, 1982 There are two more siddurim that I'll make a special note of: First is a siddur that uses the text I described above, despite it being published in Israel. I speak of the Siddur Rinat Yisrael - Ashkenaz Livnei Chu"l, edited by Shlomo Tal, and published by the WZO. (Mine is the 1973 edition.) I have found this siddur to be meticulous in following Nusach Chu"l when it differs from Nusach Eretz Yisrael, and this is just one example, for in all their other editions it is a given that the Amidah never closes with Oseh Hashalom, and that Oseh Hashalom *does* appear at the ends of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. Second, I cite the First Edition (Aug 1984) of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. In this siddur, the Heh of Oseh Hashalom never appears in Kaddish or Elokai N'tzor, not even in brackets. And one who follows the directions in any Amidah would end B'sefer Chayim with the special Oseh Hashalom. I note, however, that the instructions do include the note, "See Laws #65 regarding Oseh Hashalom," and if one would turn to the Laws section in the back of the siddur, he would learn about this machlokes. However, the subsequent versions of the ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim - and especially the all-Hebrew editions - are different, and are much more open about saying Hamevarech at the end of the Amidah, and Oseh Hashalom at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My conclusion, based mostly on my limited memory and experience, by supported by the texts of the actual siddurim that people used, leads me to conclude that until the early 1980's or so, NO ONE in America (who davened Ashkenaz) would fail to change the end of the Amidah to Oseh Hashalom, nor would they add the Heh at the end of Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor. My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 27 18:20:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:20:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical > substance at all, ... I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical substance? I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* be removed by cleaning. Gmar chasima tova to all, Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:21:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? Message-ID: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Please see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v I personally have always used money for Kapporas was. This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly mistreated before they are used for Kapporas. IIRC a few years ago it was discovered that some chickens were left in cages in the sun without water or food and died. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:31:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: As you know, I work at slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse used to get all the chickens from kapporos to be kashered. Most of the chickens had been severely mishandled, with their wings torn out of their socket by the people swinging them. That makes the chicken traif, and so they had to be discarded. After checking around, they found out that this is the case almost everywhere with the kapporos chickens. Since chickens can be handled properly by professionals, that means there is absolutely no hetter for the issur of tzaar baalei chaim: it can only be nidche l'tzorech, and there is no tzorech here. I never in my life did kapporos, nor did the Brisker. Personally, I tell people it is a mitzva NOT to do it, and to give tzedoko. But since Chabad and others have made Kapporos appear like one of the main things of Judaism, I cannot let my name be used here. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:48:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/17 21:20, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> Halacha seems to take the position that taam has no physical >> substance at all, ... > > I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence > that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical > substance? I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for a modern person to wrap ones head around. > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? Rather, it must > be that taam is something that does *not* have substance, and *cannot* > be removed by cleaning. If you'd removed all substance from the keli then you'd have nothing left to kasher! All you've done is clean the surface. There was never a hava amina that the taam clings to the surface and can be cleaned off. We know scientifically that taam does have substance, but it's not on the surface. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 08:54:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:54:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7096234e-1e3d-84c3-bb8b-dcfebecbb79f@starways.net> On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got > that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is > effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean > beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the > substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 10:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Starbucks coffee and nosein ta'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170928170022.GC32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> I'm curious about your use of the word "seems". Is there any evidence :> that halacha might take the position that taam DOES have physical :> substance? : I'm not aware of any, but it's a very strange position and hard for : a modern person to wrap ones head around. I agree, but I also agree with Lisa (Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:54pm CDT) about RAM's reason for reaching this conclusion: : On 9/28/2017 4:20 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> I have always understood that taam does NOT have substance, and I got :> that from the halacha of kashering a keli with hagalah. Hagalah is :> effective only in removing taam, and the keli must be totally clean :> beforehand. Now, if taam has substance, and I have cleaned all the :> substance from the keli, then what remains to kasher? ... : If taam is something absorbed into the kli, you wouldn't be able to get : it out by washing. That's why we use terms like "polet" (expel). I : always assumed that there was some sort of barely detectable substance : absorbed into the kli. Hence things like glass and stainless steel : possibly not being mekabel taam, because they aren't porous. In the past I've promoted a third possibility as part of my general argument that halakhah's metzi'us is defined experientially, and more than that -- how we respond viscerally carries more weight than how we understand an experience intellectually. This puts the question of ta'am alongside the use of Aristotilian trajectories in defining hota'ah on Shabbos, ignoring microscopic bugs, etc... Halakhah would end up closer to classical Natural Philosophy than to the world revealed to us by Science. Natural Philosophy starts with common sense. So, its errors in describing the objective world are off in ways that being them closer to our visceral experience. My justification is that halakhah's function has more to do with its impact on middos and deveiqus, and thus on the impact on the performer, than on the physics of the objects being utilized. Which allows for a notion of ta'am that has no physical substance (like Zev) rather than being "some sort of barely detectable substance" (as per Lisa). And yet, my non-physical ta'am isn't one Zev has in the past agreed with. If I were to treat my own theories as though they were certainties, I wouldn't have asked my earlier question. I asked: > The one bit of kashrus I don't "get" is how grossly we overestimate > the size of a taam of something. We require bitul beshishim of the > volume, because this is the only way to guarantee bitul beshishim of the > ta'am? Are we saying that a pot that gained so little taam basar so as > to show the same weight on a food scale may have picked up so much meat > that we should use the volume of the pot to guarantee bitul? But if ta'am is about how we experience the pot, or how we should be experiencing the pot if our yir'as hacheit were up to snuff, then the whole pot is indeed tainted. I asked the quesion so as to check that theory (which I was originally intending to avoid re-re-re-re...-rehashing) against other suggestions. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 12:03:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:21:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/yd5fbx4v ... : This article does not mention that sometimes the chickens are badly : mistreated before they are used for Kapporas... That's not an argument against kaparos... That's an argument against being careless with the chickens one uses for them. Similarly, the fact that many chickens end up wasted is an argument against wasting chickens, not the minhag. This conversation came up when my kids were in the younger grades, and the schools they went to felt obligated to educate them in this minhag. The SA rules (OC 605:1) rules yeish limnoa haminhag. In the BY he cites the Mordechai on Yuma, the Pisqei haRosh, the Tashbeitz as teaching the minhag of kaparos. Teshuvos haRashba says it reached them from Ashkenaz, and R' Hai said it was minhag. So why does he ban it? Because he holds like the Ramban, that the minhag is darkhei emori. (It is also possible he agreed with the Rashba, and didn't see a need to import a questionable Ashkenazi minhag.) And the Rama notes the solid background for "minhag vasiqin", and "ve'ein leshanos". Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. This doesn't apply to someone whose family has for generations been using money, a bean plant growing in a palm-wicker basket (Rashi, Shabbos 81b "hai parpisa") or not been doing kapparos at all. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 28 11:52:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588ee3662a16491c9404fcc82bfe2e8a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era which included the newfangled text? Akiva Miller _______________________________________________ Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom. Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Sep 28 22:03:26 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them > a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money. No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate object such as money. You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. > Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Sep 29 13:15:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the : >Maharil)... : : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather from his own money. (Shelah) : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a meilitz yosher before going into din. I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the pidyon of the person. :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree.... Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag vasiqin"? GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht : Shelah or the Maharil. The central point of kaparos but that a : life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it : with an inanimate object such as money. : : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but : the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after : kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or : else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor. The : Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, : since it's less embarrassing to the recipient. : : : >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- : >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. : : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : pedigree. The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were : doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand : it; we should trust them and do as they taught us. : : -- : Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, : zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all : _______________________________________________ : Avodah mailing list : Avodah at lists.aishdas.org : http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org : GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From zev at sero.name Fri Sep 29 13:33:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the > : >Maharil)... > : > : No, he doesn't. The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it > : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev... > > Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather > from his own money. (Shelah) As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > : chicken afterwards. Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka.... > > Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is > inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer > to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a > meilitz yosher before going into din. Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka. Plus, kaporos is not done right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend doing it as much as a few days earlier). > I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have > primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag. Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation? > I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the > pidyon of the person. The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. > :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age -- > :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. > > : No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means > : a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its > : pedigree.... > > Source? It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". > He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously > suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves > pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin > to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition > fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag > vasiqin"? The same thing. Although don't know who gave this heter someone must have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we don't understand it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:05:15 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog Message-ID: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one? From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Sep 29 05:14:07 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to another book which I don't own). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Sep 30 13:35:00 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: If I can mix actuality with the idea below: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. Ben On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the > chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the > Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after > kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or > else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer > Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since > it's less embarrassing to the recipient. From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:22:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c1fa29c-aa4b-122a-0dce-bfe50d5e5e32@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 > minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of > Succot (only the first day for Sefardim). > > What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to > another book which I don't own). Shulchan aruch OC 649. See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like the Rambam. Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being covered in more red berries than leaves, etc. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 19:18:58 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov Message-ID: . A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group: > The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when > Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is > known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is > a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one > is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in > for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving > lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed > and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good > both physically and spiritually! When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos. My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov? I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos. Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years, I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic - allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running, Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote "Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".) So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Looking forward to your responses. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sat Sep 30 18:03:12 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> <20170929201553.GA15122@aishdas.org> <4f18fe39-f160-a3da-72fd-b0cde141702e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171001010312.GA17048@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". : > And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will : > be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give : > maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather : > from his own money. (Shelah) : : As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do : kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. : Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos : is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give : tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. : >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is : >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer : >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a : >meilitz yosher before going into din. : : Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama : and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all : of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) As you yourself write, epmashsis added: : The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, : instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can : buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. : >: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means : >: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its : >: pedigree.... : > : >Source? : : It's what the word means. Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a : plural noun. It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients". Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find "vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim. Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless. The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the chain was already broken for a couple of generations. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 21:05:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3040f2fc-ea44-2eaf-3016-6c25f3b8b9c6@sero.name> On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and > sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the > mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only > applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar one may buy the cheaper one. The second opinion is that even if both are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a third more for the better one. This rule is not just for esrog, it's in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b). > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you can)? If > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a > hiddur to buy one? It means neither one. You left out a word. The Mechaber's language is "*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish". One should buy the better one, *if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior one. If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it. But there's certainly no restriction if you want to. The gemara says "Up to a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zev at sero.name Sat Sep 30 19:25:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit? In-Reply-To: References: <1506612094092.37841@stevens.edu> <20170928190303.GH32121@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > If I can mix actuality with the idea below: > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149 > > What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with > tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or > honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that > affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in > Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question. The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck. There's nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-) Especially on Erev Yom Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah. The scandal is that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah. If they shechted them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared. [Email #2] On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon". >:> And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will >:> be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give >:> maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather >:> from his own money. (Shelah) >: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do >: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards. >: Kaporos cannot be done on money. The idea makes no sense. Kaporos >: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give >: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken. > Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person > to the pidyon of the person's pidyon. We clearly have switched topics. There is no other way to read the Rama. The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka. The Rama says that we should not change this minhag. Then he says how it should be done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white. *Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the person. and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam". It's a pidyon just like pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the poor, we buy it back from tzedaka. >:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is >:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer >:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a >:> meilitz yosher before going into din. >: Since when? Where did you get that idea? The language of the Rama >: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all >: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka... > The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor > person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken. Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly. The minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them money. On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable. See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned earlier. So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery. See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to the poor. (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.) > (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about > a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes > no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.) Where did you get this idea? There's nothing about it in the source we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen. The pasuk from Iyov is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" that we will shecht instead of this "gever". It has nothing to do with doing a mitzvah. Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov. > As you yourself write, epmashsis added: >: The chicken is the pidyon of the person. Zeh chalifasi. Later, >: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can >: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni. Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this. Giving it to the poor is a separate minhag. BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries or something, but you think it's good enough for them. This isn't a logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money prevents it. On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy day). >:>: No, it isn't. "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means >:>: a minhag of the ancients. He's not appealing to its age but to its >:>: pedigree.... This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an old minhag". But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised what it was. "Vosik" does not mean old. You're confusing it with "`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; strong; distinguished". "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a distinguished scholar". "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee distinguished among the nations". "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the conscientiously pious men of former days." So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn because they can't sleep anyway:-) [Email #3] PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really. https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7 defines it in leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced". So even when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time itself but to the experience gained over that time. The etymology is not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy". It does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, but of experience. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all